<p>I don’t accept that wine is analogous to a medical treatment prescribed by a doctor. If someone had a documented medical need for alcohol, and alcohol were only available by prescription after a medical examination, then I do think it should be covered by insurance.</p>
<p>Bay, I know you think birth control pills should be available over the counter. (And IUDs, rings, implants-- them too?) But none of them are in fact available over the counter, there may be medical reasons why they shouldn’t be available over the counter, and there are certainly political reasons why they won’t be available over the counter. That’s the reality. In this reality, which is not going to change, they count as medical products. So they are not like wine. In this reality, which is not going to change, they are preventative medical services and should be treated like other preventative medical services.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding Clintonian, it depends on the definition of “life.” At the stage in which there is truly just a clump of cells, is that life? There is the potential for life. We don’t know if that clump will survive if not hindered in any way, so maybe the potential isn’t even there. When does the potential for life cross the line into life? Justice Scalia says, according to the Constitution, protection is extended only to a “walking around person.” I give him him the benefit of the doubt that he would not really wait until they walk. </p>
<p>So to use “anti-life” is not accurate. Is “anti-potential for life” more accurate. No, both terms are much too broad. No one is “anti-life” or “anti-potential life” all the time. It is entirely circumstantial. The only logical nomenclature is one that says “in favor of a woman making a choice.” It is a case by case basis and “pro-choice” reflects that.</p>
<p>I must say, I’m glad to see the young women jumping in to this, and coming in so fiercely in the defense of women’s rights. Kender, romani, et al, we parents were your age when this battle was fought the first time, and it saddens and astounds me that 40 years on, we’re having the same conversations. </p>
<p>Before Roe v Wade in 1973, women were routinely killed and injured by illegal abortions. (That is – young women, poor women, single women were. Rich women, mostly married, travelled to countries where it was safe and legal.) Ever since Roe, anti-choice forces have been working to restrict it, with the ultimate goal of overturning it. But something has changed in the last year or two; they have been emboldened and energized, and they are seeing successes. A few years ago, these ultrasound bills would have been soundly defeated; now there are laws in 7 states and more pending. Funding is being cut for basic women’s healthcare – not just abortions, but mammograms and pap smears. The well-justified fear of violence, combined with funding cuts, has driven abortion providers out of almost 90% of US counties. And now contraception has come under direct attack. Those of us who remember the 70’s can hardly believe it. </p>
<p>When women don’t control their reproductive choices, they don’t control their lives. The assault on your constitutional rights and your reproductive health has one goal – to send you back to the past. The people who would deny you birth control also want you out of college and out of the professional workforce. They would repeal your right to equal pay and equal access to the courts. They would deny you workplace protections like paid maternity leave and protection from sexual harrassment. They would repeal Title IX. They would have it that a single women could not buy a house, or adopt a child. </p>
<p>Make no mistake, young women; this is much bigger than reproductive rights, as important as those are. It is about returning you to the days of your great-grandmothers: second-class citizens, dependent on a husband for your social standing, your financial well-being, and your legal rights.</p>
<p>LasMa, it’s why we’re so passionate about it. We have our whole reproductive lives ahead of us. I don’t like the trend and it’s not something I want to fight for decades. I cannot believe in 2012 we’re still having a debate about whether women or politicians control a woman’s reproductive system. I thought that was settled decades ago.</p>
<p>My mom said almost the exact same thing you said. “I never thought when you (me) were born that you would ever have to fight what me and your grandma had to fight for.” We’ve talked about this issue numerous times, my father too, and just can’t believe these types of bills passing.</p>
<p>Women’s rights are absolutely under attack right now. They are under attack in a way I have never seen in my lifetime, ever. Anyone who believes, given the current slew of laws being passed, that women’s reproductive freedom is not under attack is not paying attention. Heck, if there’s so much concern for the life of the children, why not fight harder to get some laws in place, some tough, enforcable laws, which make men pay child support? Put some of that energy into helping the hundreds of thousands of children living in single parent (no father) homes below the poverty line instead of into making it more and more difficult for young and impoverished women to get access to affordable and effective birth control? (condoms are necessary for safe sex, but they don’t prevent pregnancy nearly as effectively as condoms used in tandem with the pill.)</p>
<p>I was born in 1965, the year women gained unfettered access to birth control due to Griswold vs. the state of Connecticut. It was Richard Nixon who first partnered with planned parenthood to get women access to birth control. There used to be a strong group of men in both parties who supported women’s reproductive freedom, and if it hadn’t been for those men, it never would have happened.</p>
<p>The only good thing to come out of this will be that young men and women in the next generation will wake up and start to fight and agitate. They are the most educated generation of women yet in the U.S. and they have benefitted from the fight for their rights, but now they will have to fight, too. It’s just true.</p>
<p>Hunt–I appreciate your point about the polarizing that occurs on this issue which removes the opportunity for any dialogue.</p>
<p>I am pro choice, but hardly anti life in any way. I am a mother of three, and fully recognize the preciousness of life. I also recognize that sadly there are times in many womens’ lives where she must make a difficult choice about a pregnancy. This could be due to contraceptive failure, rape, a serious medical condition or mental illness that can be exarcerbated by pregnancy, or even having a child(ren) and being unable to truly provide for another. </p>
<p>Most women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do not take it lightly and do so after heart wrenching conflict, and most women who do undergo a pregnancy termination experience significant emotional pain, but paradoxically many of these women do so because they actually are valuing life. Valuing what it really means to bring a baby into the world, value their own health and mental health needs,and value the children who they are already caring for. </p>
<p>In a perfect world noone would need to terminate a pregnancy, but in the real world, sadly life is much more complicated. I respect that for those who hold the pro life beliefs it is unimaginable to terminate a pregnancy, I would hope that you could respect that women who are pro choice are absolutely for life.</p>
<p>The wine analogy is not as off base as you make it seem.</p>
<p>If you go to the doctor for a check-up, and she says, “Cardinal, you really need to relax and take care of your heart. I recommend that you drink a glass of red wine per day.” So you go out and buy some red wine with your own money, but you don’t have to. There are other things you can do to help your heart, like quitting your stressful job, getting regular exercise, and losing weight. It is your prerogative whether to drink the wine or not to treat the condition.</p>
<p>If you go to the doctor for a check-up, and she says, “Cardinal, you are sexually active, so you really ought to be using birth control.” So you say, okay, how about writing me a prescription for bcps, and she does. So you go out and buy some bcps with your own money, but you don’t have to. You can buy condoms and spermacide instead, or decide to use another method of avoiding pregnancy. It is your prerogative whether to use bcps or not to treat the condition.</p>
<p>Re: birth control in the old days. How did they do it before bcps and abortion? My mother had only 3 children during her 63-year marriage, H’s mother had the same. If my mother was still with us, I’d love to hear her story.</p>
<p>But if I go to the doctor and she says, “Cardinal, you have high blood pressure. You can treat this with <exercise, losing=”" weight,="" whatever,="" drinking="" a="" glass="" of="" red="" wine="" every="" day="">" but those things don’t work for me, she will prescribe a drug. And my health insurance will pay for it.</exercise,></p>
<p>So similarly, if I go to the doctor and she says, “Cardinal, you are sexually active, you should use birth control if you don’t want to get pregnant,” and I use some over-the-counter methods or other ways of preventing pregnancy but they aren’t working for me, she will prescribe the pill or an IUD or something. And my health insurance should pay for it, just like they paid for my high blood pressure meds even though if I had made lifestyle changes I wouldn’t have needed them.</p>
<p>Bay, that square peg isn’t going to fit in that round hole no matter how hard you pound on it. I’m not questioning the sincerity of your belief that this is somehow about “government intrusion” instead of about some people wanting to dictate to others about what they can and can’t do by wielding economic power as a weapon, but you’re wrong.</p>
<p>It’s not about government intrusion forcing BC pills on America. It’s about people trying to exert power over women. That’s why it’s about money. Money = power.</p>
<p>None of those conditions compare - in fact, absolutely nothing compares to the consequence of having a child. The ability to plan, with as great a degree as possible, when to have a child is one of the most important things in life. Failure at it has consequences like no other.</p>
<p>You cannot assume that insurance will pay for every alternative treatment for a condition; they often do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be how you feel. I do not feel it that way. Do you really think men in America want all their women pregnant? Do you think men in America want to be saddled with another child every time they have sex for pleasure (and aren’t called ‘sluts’ for it)?</p>
<p>I do think it is partially about money, but I don’t see that as a problem. I understand that not everyone wants to pay for 100% of others’ optional choices, and I think everyone should have some financial responsibility for their own health. Remember, we are only talking about contraception consumers who have jobs with employer insurance coverage, which right now usually offers coverage for contraception.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to sound like a pro-lifer, because I am not, but I want to point out that every unplanned pregnancy does not result in a doomsday scenario.</p>
<p>Actually, we are talking about quite a bit more, though, as you note, the extension is small. All people on Medicaid and Medicare have the mandate (that’s more than 50% of the ensured population), all active military and their families have the mandate, all covered veterans and their covered family members have the mandate, all federal employees, all folks on private insurance in 28 states - whether religious or not - have the mandate, and in 8 of those states, all churches who provide insurance to their employees (not self-insured) have the mandate. In addition, by contract, the mandate covers most if not all state employees, municipal government employees, schoolteachers, and their families.</p>
<p>So the “new mandate” only covers - non-veteran, non-active military, non-Medicaid, non-Medicare, non-federal employee, non-state employee, non-schoolteacher, etc., folks with jobs with employer insurance coverage, in 22 states. </p>
<p>Folks who don’t like the mandate should start by campaigning to end it for active military personnel.</p>
This is a good example of the polarization I’m talking about. Somebody who believes the above can’t accept that abortion foes really do believe that an unborn child has rights of its own that should be protected. But many of them really do. They actually think that abortion is murder, or tantamount to murder. If you want to persuade them, you have to tell them why it isn’t murder, not just accuse them of wanting to control you. They want to control you to the extent that they want to prevent you from committing what they think is a serious crime.</p>
<p>Let me just add this–if red wine really reduced medical costs significantly, insurance companies should give it out for free.</p>
<p>Wow- read the whole thread. I want to clear up some misperceptions some posters had about bcp’s. Besides contraception some additional uses of bcp’s include:</p>
<p>Treatment (NOT PREVENTION) uses:
Endometriosis
Recurrent ovarian cysts and irregular ovulation
Polycystic ovarian syndrome (different from recurrent cysts)
Acne
Severe menstrual bleeding. In some women this is debilitating and can cause severe anemia.
Severe menstrual pain. Sometimes this is due to endometriosis, sometimes not.
premenstrual disorders </p>
<p>Prevention:
Prevents endometrial (the predominant type of uterine) cancer
Reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 50%. This applies to tubal ligations as well.
Reduces the risk of infertility in endometriosis patients. Endometriosis can cause infertility, partly by causing adhesions. Yes, if these patients aren’t ready for a family, and even if abstinent, they should go on bcp’s so as to INCREASE fertility and pregnancy later.</p>
<p>So BCP’s are not a preventive measure only. They deserve bona fide prescription status as any other precription medication. Also, they suppress ovulation so that the egg is never released. So no rendezvous occurs with the sperm and no mini-abortion. </p>
<p>BCP’s should not be over the counter because patients may not understand their individualized risks, including thromboembolism, hypertension, liver issues and stroke. These risks vary person to person. Prescription of BCP’s should require an annual visit and usually a pelvic exam unless the person is not sexually active. How else can the liable provider be sure the person isn’t somehow currently pregnant, having an elevated blood pressure, or hasn’t developed a condition for which birth control pills are contraindicated?</p>
<p>Bay, I think it’s about power, control, and sex. The double standard of sexual conduct for men and women was historically best enforced by the fact that women get pregnant and men don’t. “The pill” changed that. For the first time women could take control of their own sexuality. (That’s why I disagree with the posts talking about the other medical uses for BC pills - that’s a distraction. This is all about women’s right to have sex without getting pregnant.)</p>
<p>The problem with Rush Limbaugh’s vile blathering wasn’t that he used “bad words” - it was the substance of what he said - a young woman who has sex is dirty, a whore. She wants us to pay so she can have sex, sex, sex. Women who have sex are bad. </p>
<p>The loss of ability to hold the threat of unwanted pregnancy over the head of a woman who enjoys sex and wants to engage in it - and not necessarily under the terms she has been “allowed” to have it under - is a loss of power for those who used to be able to wield that power over young women (a category which absolutely includes some other women, by the way.)</p>
<p>Making women “pay” for the right to have sex, by making them pay for BC pills which by any normal standard would be included in any comprehensive medical plan, is just another sneaky way to try to reassert that power. Go back and read Limbaugh’s comments, or
if you doubt that.</p>
<p>Its all about power, and exerting power by controlling money. All of it.</p>