<p>Will they have to take a picture of the sperm, and sample to see that it is healthy?</p>
<p>sorry, I deleted that post about the ohio law that will force doctors to inform men of the dangers of viagra and get a psychologists opinion. It seemed like … off subect.</p>
<p><a href=“http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10612704-want-viagra-ohio-lawmaker-wants-men-to-get-second-opinion[/url]”>http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10612704-want-viagra-ohio-lawmaker-wants-men-to-get-second-opinion</a></p>
<p>But, here’s the article. :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Without beating around the bush, what is your take on this situation then, mini? What exactly is Georgetown “saying” by covering bcps for their employees but not their students? Is it that they really only want students to attend who comply with Catholic doctrine? Or is it something else?</p>
<p>No. Different health plan. The priests and etc. on the board of the University Health Plan are probably entirely separate from the Jesuits who run the University itself.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, I feel pretty sure that the priests and high Catholic mucky-mucks who govern the Health Plan would take exception to the suggestion that they are not following Catholic doctrine. I bet they don’t provide for assisted suicide, and likely not for abortions. The small number of celibate men can yack all they want about what they think Catholic doctrine is, but there are (obviously) hundreds of thousands if not millions of Catholics, including those who make health decisions for their “flocks”, who disagree with them. In my state, that even includes those who run Catholic churches.</p>
<p>Ok, then it sounds like you are confirming what I suspect and wrote long ago: The mandate solves a “problem” that doesn’t exist. The majority of insurance plans cover contraceptives already. For those that do not, contraception is widely available. It is unfortunate that this unnecessary governmental act sparked a backlash that might result in diminishing a woman’s access to bcps. But it probably will not. It is common knowledge that many, if not most, Americans do not like the government telling them what to do, and as could have been predicted, they reacted to try to stop it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet the people who oppose mandated contraception coverage on the grounds that “government is too intrusive” – tend to be the very same people who support all of the new laws restricting a woman’s constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. It’s hard to imagine how government could get more intrusive than the transvaginal probe which almost became law in Virginia, and was only slightly modified under intense pressure. It seems inconsistent to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this is ostrich-with-head-in-sand thinking. No, it’s not “widely available.” Studies consistently show that birth control use is higher (and pregnancy and abortion rates are lower) among people who have birth control coverage in their health plans, suggesting that lack of availability and lack of access lead to sub-optimal rates of birth control use, and a higher incidence of unwanted pregnancies—meaning almost certainly a higher incidence of abortions, and a higher incidence of children being born into family situations where they’re unwanted, a really terrible way to start one’s life. </p>
<p>It also means higher costs of medical care to employers and to taxpayers, since someone’s got to pay for all the additional prenatal, birthing, and post-natal pediatric and maternal care that results from unwanted pregnancies that would not have occurred if birth control were more widely available. The Catholic church’s opposition to birth control is singularly ironic and short-sighted in this regard, because denying women access to birth control only increases the number of unwanted pregnancies, leading to more abortions AND higher health care costs for the church itself. </p>
<p>Opponents of the birth control mandate have ham-handedly tried to make this an issue of religious liberty against government overreaching. But surveys show that the public sees this not as a religious liberty issue, but as an effort by Republicans to deny women access to birth control, and by roughly a 2-to-1 margin, the public opposes that effort. About 63% of self-identified independent votes side with the administration on this issue, as do nearly half of Republicans and a majority of Catholics. The Republican leadership in Congress and the Catholic Bishops tried to make this a wedge issue against the Democrats, but it backfired; it became instead a wedge issue separating them from a substantial part of the base they’re counting on to drive their political agenda.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Kelly</a> Cassidy Proposes ‘Viagra Amendment’ To Ultrasound Mandate In Illinois](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Kelly Cassidy Proposes 'Viagra Amendment' To Ultrasound Mandate In Illinois | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>Limbaugh is pooh-poohing the notion that he’s been hurt by the mass exodus of sponsors, but his show today tells a different story:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Rush</a> Limbaugh’s Show Airs Over 5 Minutes Of Dead Air As Ad Boycott Continues](<a href=“http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/08/441172/rush-limbaugh-radio-silence/]Rush”>http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/03/08/441172/rush-limbaugh-radio-silence/)</p>
<p>(Sorry for the serial posting, but I’m on the west coast and a night owl to boot. I’m normally at work during the part of the day that this thread gets lively. Sleep tight, CC parents! 
)</p>
<p>“Presidential advisor Axelrod who railed against Limbaugh is planning to go on Maher’s show.”</p>
<p>I don’t view going on someone’s show as an endorsement of the host’s views or behavior. My mother has been on the O’Reilly Factor as a supporter of gay marriage. She believed, and I agree, that if you want to be an effective advocate for your cause, you need to talk to O’Reilly’s fans, Hannity’s fans, etc., and you can’t do that by going on MSNBC. If Axelrod thinks that he’s got an important message for Maher’s fans, he should go on the show.</p>
<p>Rush doesn’t really have guests, so there’s no equivalent there. But feeding into the echo-chamber pattern where we only talk to people we agree with doesn’t help move the country forward.</p>
<p>A million dollar donation to the president’s pac and all Maher gets is Axelrod? Sheesh, I would have expected the prez himself for that much $$$$.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How is Axelrod going on Maher NOT feeding into the echo chamber? I’m confused.</p>
<p>Here’s my question about the ultrasound: who is supposed to pay for it?</p>
<p>Insurance? Passes along the cost to the consumers.
Government? Passes along the cost to the tax payers.</p>
<p>ETA: It does look like the woman can “opt-out” of the procedure. Then what the heck is the point of this??</p>
<p>Omg… I just looked more into the bill. </p>
<p>It was pushed through by the Agricultural Committee? Are women cattle now? Someone PLEASE explain this to me before my head explodes.</p>
<p>The Democrat who sponsered the bill needs to be booted out- along with everyone else who voted in favor, considering that roughly 1/3 of those in the state support this. If you’re going to go against the overwhelming will of the people, you need to go.</p>
<p>Great point Romani, why are these lawmakers willing to add this cost?<br>
Let’s see what Axelrod says on Real Time, who knows, we may hear Maher recognize his own need to change his language. It could happen…</p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC App</p>
<p>
Please be careful on this. Please. Politics aside, performing an ultrasound is an important step in making abortion safe, and almost all reputable providers perform them, even the dreaded transvaginal, because failing to date a pregnancy properly and failing to ensure that the pregnancy is not ectopic costs lives. It’s very important that women don’t get the idea that the procedure, itself, is superfluous or abusive because it most certainly is not.</p>
<p>^ Zoose, my point was that the bill has NO point. It’s optional with the bill. It was optional before. It should be between a woman and her doctor, not the legislature. Now, it’s just more work for the woman who doesn’t want or need an ultrasound.</p>
<p>Again- why was this done in the agricultural committee?</p>
<p>And romani, my point was that this forum has always had a particularly large membership of young women, and when careless rhetoric (“it’s rape!” or “it’s a waste of money!”) is employed, those young women can and will be harmed. Words do matter and it is the responsibility of every poster to be careful with those words. Ultrasound is a completely appropriate part of the abortion procedure, and I’ve come to really wonder whether the health and safety of woman actually is the priority of some of the loudest screamers about this issue. With all the things government has come to do, mandating the safest possible abortion procedure isn’t all that much of a stretch. I am starting to wonder if some of the opponents (not here, I mean public activists) see women as incidental to the power and money that comes with (a) abortion funding and (b) whipping up hysteria for fundraising purposes.</p>
<p>So I’m asking that people please be aware of young women reading when posting certain things here and even on their own Facebooks. If even one woman loses her life or fertility because she refused an appropriate ultrasound, then shame on a lot of people.
We won’t even mention the forum rule on political threads, because if this isn’t one, I can’t imagine what is.</p>
<p>I believe this should be between a woman and her doctor. Not politicians. I’ll leave it at that.</p>
<p>
It is never unnecessary to definitively date a pregnancy. Never. You do know that ultrasounds are routinely part of the abortion process don’t you? We can certainly come to a meeting of the minds on whether the procedure should be mandated, but I am asking you to turn down the rhetoric because ultrasound is not rape and it is not unnecessary.</p>