<p>Hunt, I wasn’t speaking to the anti-choice proponents. I learned long ago that minds will not be changed about this. I was speaking to the young women who may not know the history, or fully realize what’s at stake.</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>BUT they are only available without copay (they are NOT free), and the ONLY reason they are available without copay, unlike other prescription medications, is because they are a recognized preventive health service. They are not without copay because they save money (lots of prescription meds do that), but because of their recognition by the U.S. Public Health Service as a preventive health service (similar to vaccinations).</p>
<p>geeps:
And if you had read my post accurately, where I only addressed you due to the fact you were addressing me, I do not approve of the term “anti-choice” either. Creating negative labels for others rather than using the one they use to describe themselves will only beget further hate.</p>
<p>Hunt:
While I see your point, I think a blanket statement is still wrong to make. There are people on both ends of the spectrum who are not so extreme as to completely disrespect another person’s position. I simply was, quite sincerely in a past post, trying to work through why negative (and incorrect) words would be used to label another person. The only conclusion I can come to is that if there are some who believe the negative terms (all the ones used to describe both sides), then no wonder there is such tension.</p>
<p>Taking your statement: “If you’re fully comfortable with your position on abortion, whatever it is, you haven’t thought about it carefully enough.”</p>
<p>Now, I do appreciate that this does cover both positions. However, I do disagree. From the position of pro-choice, it dictates that one must be always reconsidering on each given situation whether abortion is necessary. Further, this type of thought process is one that should be of no one’s concern but the women in question and her doctor. While I might have no quarrels with one choosing abortion for herself, it is not place to judge her or her reasons. I am not her. My body is not the one in question. From the pro-life position, focusing only on the self, a person knows what they want for themselves. If a person is against abortion for themselves, that is their choice. There can be situations like romani’s where a woman must change her mindset for herself, but this does not mean she has not previously thought it through carefully. It just means a change in situation has occurred. On this same mindset for the pro-choice person who is for abortion for herself, a situation change might alter her previously determined thought process. It does not mean she did think it through carefully the first time either. This is, of course, just my opinion and we are both entitled to what we believe even if we are in conflict.</p>
<p>Bay:
The reason I find the wine analogy inaccurate is it is comparing apples to oranges. Wine is not a prescription medication. It is available “over the counter.” Birth control medication is not. It is very much a prescription only drug.</p>
<p>Further, there are a plethora of other options that can be used for heart health. Some are prescription, some are not. Aspirin comes to mind for one such medication that is available over the counter without a prescription. The problem with birth control medication is there are often no other options depending on the what the birth control is being taken for, let alone ones that are available over the counter, without a prescription, and not ridiculously expensive. Painkillers, sure, but these do nothing but temporarily alleviate discomfort and, for example, the painkillers I have been prescribed in the past (the ones that work for me to at least take the edge off) are prescription only.</p>
<p>While I would have no problem with birth control medication being made available over the counter, the point is it currently is not. However, I doubt something like this could happen. It is a medication that requires being monitored by a doctor to determine if displayed side effects are one that must be of concern. Oh sure, they have those warnings on all medications stating a set of side effects one should seek medical attention for, but I would love to see the statistics of who actually follows those instructions. For me, I’m paranoid and probably would go the moment I saw something unusual, but I’ve known people myself who have happily ignored a side effect for various personal reasons.</p>
<p>Even further, as it has been mentioned several times by others and myself, it is not always about sex. A condom and spermicide are not always a viable substitute. What would someone like me, who is not sexually active, do with a condom and spermicide? Blow a balloon and cover it with the spermicide so it will make wet spots when it hits the ground? Doesn’t exactly help me, does it? Although it does make me giggle ;). Laughter is medicine, right? But still not the right medication for my problem and, truthfully, aggravates my problem when I’m in pain. Therefore condoms would indirectly cause me pain! (I hope it is obvious I’m attempting to be silly and make someone here laugh)</p>
<p>My biggest issue from all of this is while sex is one angle of the contraceptive debate, it is not the only one and that is not the only thing it should boil down to. I have no problem with it being part of the debate, but it should be expanded beyond that to include those aspects that have nothing to do with having a baby or not. Sure, I’m pro-choice, but I’ll never be in a position where I have to choose abortion or not for myself.</p>
<p>Although on kluge’s note that was posted while I’ve been typing this: sex and babies is why I think this debate even exists. I would like to believe if more people focused on the aspects of stillwater’s post (again, while I’ve been typing this), I doubt little debate or opposition would exist. However, I could be wrong. It’s just speculation and my own wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Kender, you made me laugh :)</p>
<p>I am very glad to hear that :D</p>
<p>I was just clearing up the the misperceptions about what bcps are and what they do. I think the facts should be clear to all posters. Certainly I have many thoughts about access and the politics. If citing their preventative nature helps access according to rules in the healthcare reform act, then great!</p>
<p>Contraception should be available cheaply. Free sounds good, but I wonder if things that come completely free are undervalued. It’s true with doctor’s visits. Cancellations and no shows are higher when they’re free. There is less respect for it. I do agree contraception should be free to those with really no means. At least BCP’s are available for $9/mo at Walmart and apparently some other locations (that’s retail, without insurance).</p>
<p>
So you’re absolutely positive that abortion isn’t murder? Well, there’s somebody else who’s absolutely positive that it is. I continue to maintain that anybody who’s absolutely sure about this isn’t thinking deeply enough.</p>
<p>
Actually, Hunt, I’m absolutely positive that I don’t know if abortion “is murder” or not. That’s why I’m pro-choice. If I was sure one way or the other I could have a different opinion. But I maintain that unless you’re absolutely positive that abortion is murder, who are you to decide for a woman what she should do about the state of affairs inside her own body?</p>
<p>That’s what many “pro-life” people seem to be unable to “get” about what “pro-choice” means. It makes sense that Bay is pro-choice - any other position would be an assertion of the right to make that decision for the woman who is pregnant - and that is government intrusion into personal affairs. But from any perspective short of “I’m absolutely sure that abortion is murder” I think it’s hard to make a viable argument against being pro-choice.</p>
<p>mini,
There is a difference between the federal government using its money (albeit collected from us) to fund free birth control for federal employees and the military, and mandating that private businesses and individuals spend their money to fund it.</p>
<p>There is a difference between the fed gov’t mandating that private businesses and individuals pay for it; and state gov’ts mandating that private businesses and individuals pay for it.</p>
<p>There is a difference between private businesses choosing to offer it for no co-pay, and private businesses being coerced by law to offer it for no co-pay.</p>
<p>The outcome may be the same: A woman gets birth control at no charge, or at no charge other than her premium payment; but there is a difference in the political impact of how it is achieved, and politics matter in America, because we cherish the freedom to maintain our individual values. We should approach the problem in a way that is the least offensive to as many peoples’ values as possible, which may not always be the most efficient or cost effective, but so what if it isn’t?</p>
<p>Now Hunt, that’s putting words in my mouth. Didn’t someone do that to you up thread as well? Or was it misreading what you said?</p>
<p>I never addressed whether abortion is murder or not and I do not intend to because it is will never be a situation for me to make such a decision. I addressed that it was a personal choice to decide based on an individual’s own viewpoints. If a woman for herself thinks it is murder to abort a baby, then it is murder for her. If a woman thinks it is not murder for herself, then it is not for her. Your position is just as extreme as you are accusing others of being. You are stating that anyone who has made up their mind is not “thinking deeply enough.” This removes the element that situations and opinions can change while ignoring that in a given moment, a person has quite often given serious thought to their position. It does not necessarily mean either viewpoint is not “thinking deeply enough” so long as they are thinking for themselves and what is right for them.</p>
<p>And, to be fair, mine can be seen as extreme as well. Or I could be accused of being too passive! There are so many things to label me and to make judgements about me same as there are for anyone else.</p>
<p>I let people decide for themselves whether abortion is murder for themselves or not murder for themselves. I do not decide for them and I would not want it decided for them. Not my body, not my decision. I repeat that only a woman and her doctor can make such a choice. And, in the case a woman disagrees with her doctor, then she can find a new one that she does agree with. But I am not that woman and I am not that doctor. I have no say in what an individual and her doctor decide is best for her.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BRAVA. And yes, Kajon, “really.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who is being denied birth control?</p>
<p>“So you’re absolutely positive that abortion isn’t murder?”</p>
<p>I am absolutely positively 100% sure that abortion isn’t murder in states where the law doesn’t state it is murder. Murder is a legal term. It either is, or it isn’t. (Killing is another matter.) Manslaughter isn’t murder either. </p>
<p>No, I don’t allow people to make laws for themselves. If we want to advocate to change laws, that is our right as Americans. But until laws state that abortion is murder, it isn’t. It’s not a gray area. </p>
<p>“mini,
There is a difference between the federal government using its money (albeit collected from us) to fund free birth control for federal employees and the military, and mandating that private businesses and individuals spend their money to fund it.”</p>
<p>Nope. It’s a mandate. The federal government bids out coverage for federal employees from private insurers, just like any other employer would. They MANDATE that the bids they offer MUST include all recommended preventive health services, including BCPs. And federal employees BUY this insurance, and pay for it, spending their own money. They are subsidized by their employer - in this case the government - in just the same way they would be by private employers. But individuals choose it, and pay for it, and they don’t have the option to buy something without the mandate being met.</p>
<p>now Hunt, you made a case for not polarizing the two sides of this issue, but then you hurl the word murder in there???</p>
<p>perhaps I misinterpreted your earlier post as one who wanted to actually tone down the polarizing rhetoric. apparently not. To that end I had offered my personal view that terminating a pregnancy can actually be very much about a woman basing that choice on life. I also expressed my respect for pro lifers who based on their own personal beliefs do feel very strongly… However there needs to be mutual respect. We are not pro choice because we don’t value human life, but because we do value it and respect all that it involves to bring a life into the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually have no interest in approaching the “problem” in a way that is “least offensive” to the “values” of those who would limit or impede convenient and affordable access to effective forms of birth control, which the recent spate of planned parenthood closings, the ATTACK on planned parenthood, effectively does for many young women all over this country. I find their values so entirely antithetical to the values of “freedom from government interference” they espouse as to be the height of double-dealing.</p>
<p>the same people who espouse a desire for small government when it comes to regulations of business would like a large government when it comes to regulations about women’s bodies. So, when you try to frame this as a “small government” solution, I do see your point. On the other hand, when the exact same people are busy in Texas shutting down all the planned parenthoods and then screaming when the federal government refuses to give them the money they wanted to use to block women’s access to health care, claim to be the small government contingent, I have a very difficult time seeing this to be the case, even if in your individual case it might be true.</p>
<p>The company you keep on this issue does not agree with you, frankly, and agrees with you less than I do. Why not ask THEM to make birth control pills an OTC drug? they will howl.</p>
<p>ETA: Just as an aside, I am also opposed to excessive government regulation of business, as well, and believe in small government, completely. I just value individual freedoms, first of all.</p>
<p>“We should approach the problem in a way that is the least offensive to as many peoples’ values as possible, which may not always be the most efficient or cost effective, but so what if it isn’t?”</p>
<p>I actually find this seriously interesting (really, not being sarcastic). I have some trouble finding out who those people are. In my state, Catholic organizations, huge Catholic health and hospital systems, Catholic Charities, Catholic Social Services, even Catholic churches, all with priests, nuns, and Catholic heavyhitters on their boards - even when exempt from all state mandates because they are self-insured - CHOOSE to provide all recommend preventive health services - including BCPs - without copays to their employees and their families. (No, they are not FREE! they are covered by premiums). They don’t have to do so - they choose to do so, in keeping with what they see as their doctrinal requirements (we know this, because there are certain services they choose, on moral grounds, not to cover - such as assisted suicide). </p>
<p>So when I see that the vast majority of Catholic women in our state choose freely to use BCPs, the vast majority of Catholics favor the mandate, the vast majority of Catholic employers provide BCPs to their employees and their families even when they don’t have to, I have to wonder “whose values” are being offended? A very, very small group of supposedly celibate men who don’t use birth control? Put it the other way: if, today, we cut off BCPs as part of preventive health services, to the hundreds of thousands of Catholic women in the state who currently receive it, wouldn’t that be offensive to their values - both as Catholics and as women?</p>
<p>great post mini</p>
<p>mini–what a nice liberal state you live in! Where the Catholics are liberal, too. :)</p>
<p>The Pope just urged US bishops to hold the line re premarital sex & birth control. He seems to think this small group of celibate men are not being strict enough with their flock.</p>
<p>The Governor is a Catholic, and was the prime mover behind the gay marriage bill. Abortion as part of women’s services is covered in virtually all the state’s health plans (I’m actually trying to find out whether it is included voluntarily in my wife’s plan from the very large Catholic health system). </p>
<p>Actually, though, I don’t think my state’s Catholics are that much of an exception. Heck, even Georgetown University’s Health Plan for its employees and families voluntary provides all preventive health services, including BCPs, without copays. (They are not free! they are included in the premium.) Most of the 28 states with the mandates are either heavily Catholic or heavily “red”, with the mandates implemented or supported by such stalwarts as Huckabee, Romney, and Brewer. </p>
<p>But I do love my state!</p>
<p>(Neither the Pope nor the small group of men - who supposedly don’t have premarital sex - seem to set doctrine for Catholics in this area - the priests, nuns, and others on the boards of the Catholic organizations - when they are self-ensured - voluntarily provide the services. And the national Catholic Health Association currently supports the HHS rule.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That horse has left the barn.</p>
<p>On many social issues, US Catholics as a whole tend leftward.</p>