No birth control for women but Viagra for men?

[marite]

<p>

Set aside the fraught question of when human life begins. The new debate: When does pregnancy begin?</p>

<p>The Bush Administration has ignited a furor with a proposed definition of pregnancy that has the effect of classifying some of the most widely used methods of contraception as abortion.
[maps]</p>

<p>A draft regulation, still being revised and debated, treats most birth-control pills and intrauterine devices as abortion because they can work by preventing fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus. The regulation considers that destroying “the life of a human being.”

</p>

<p>[Treating</a> the Pill as Abortion, Draft Regulation Stirs Debate - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121745387879898315.html?mod=blog]Treating”>http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121745387879898315.html?mod=blog)</p>

[jym626]

<p>marite-
Alsong the same lines, there are insurance companies that will cover the cost of viagra, but not BCPs (birth control pills). And some will cover penile implants but not breast augmentation (function vs cosmetic, I suspect is the argument). Gee, for that matter, many insurers cover breast reduction-- do you think some people would consider that a form of birth control? ;)</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Thanks for posting that article Marite - even though I find it scary on so many levels. It is amazing to me that one of the reasons for the regulation would be to allow receptionists to refuse to give appointments to those wanting birth control.</p>

[VeryHappy]

<p>From the article:</p>

<p>

Among the laws considered coercive: Requirements that emergency rooms offer rape victims the morning-after pill, insurance plans cover contraception as part of prescription-drug benefits, and pharmacists fill prescriptions for birth control. The draft regulation would weaken these laws by expanding the right of conscientious objection.</p>

<p>The White House said the administration “has an obligation to enforce” that right and is “exploring a number of options.”

</p>

<p>If the Administration thinks it “has an obligation to enforce” “the right of conscientious objection” for people who don’t want to provide birth control, etc., why doesn’t the Administration also feel an obligation to enforce the right of people not to fight the war in Iraq? Or feel an obligation to make birth control and abortion available to poor women? Why these rights in particular??</p>

<p>And so on and so forth. I guess when one considers all the rights this White House doesn’t feel obligated to enforce, this is shocking.</p>

[katliamom]

<p>under bush, the old adage changes: the more things change the more they get worse and worse…</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>What we really need is a broadbased law that formally permits authority figures to ignore the suffering of others. That would cover the reaction to Hurricane Katrina and and the mortgage crisis, as well as this senstive bit of obfuscation. That way the suffering at least would know where they stand.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>What scares me is if a conservative is elected this fall and he puts a couple more conservatives on the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade will likely be overturned and Scalia/Thomas may get their way in doing away with any protection for privacy rights under the Constitutution. There would be nothing to stop an all out ban on contraceptive devices.</p>

[teriwtt]

<p>I read about this a few weeks ago and initiated a thread about it. No one seemed to believe that this could become a serious issue. </p>

<p>The Bush administration is now moving into a realm that is beyond scary.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>teriwitt - I remember that thread. I kept typing responses and deleting them because I found myself saying things like - “if they don’t want to fill prescriptions or refuse to help with certain procedures, get another job.” Oops - I said it.</p>

[ellemenope]

<p>Honestly, the sooner we can wash these guys out of our hair, the better.</p>

[LongPrime]

<p>A young adult male probably doesn’t need Viagra. vs A young adult female should take care of possible consequences. </p>

<p>An older adult male probably needs Viagra. vs An older female doesn’t need contraception.</p>

<p>If you are a Tweener, use anything that works. :)</p>

[mommusic]

<p>Nice attitude:</p>

<p>To Women: You don’t really need to have intercourse, therefore we don’t need to pay for your bc pills.</p>

<p>To Men: Oh you poor thing. You <em>need</em> to have intercourse. It’s a quality of life issue. Of course we’ll pay for Viagra.</p>

<p>Blech.</p>

[kelsmom]

<p>Keep us barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen … that way, we won’t be a problem for the old boys’ club. Or for the Vatican, I guess. Yeesh. This is NOT funny.</p>

[cartera45]

<p>Well if it’s a quality of life issue, I want my insurance carrier to pay for a really good bottle of Cabernet now and then.</p>

[Singersmom07]

<p>cartera45 I agree - and a nice sauvignon blanc in the summer :)</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>Reading this made my skin crawl. May be we need more progressively-thinking women in the government so the horny old men sitting up there would stop messing with our lives. Grrrrrr.
Coverage for red wine will be very appreciated. :)</p>

[cartera45]

<p>I’d settle for a progressively thinking man at this point - or maybe even just a “thinking” man.</p>

[BunsenBurner]

<p>Good point. A “thinking” man would be fine with me. Seems as of lately, all we’ve got are some Cowardly Lions who need courage, heartless Tin Men and brainless Scarecrows.</p>

[spideygirl]

<p>catera45

What scares me is if a conservative is elected this fall and he puts a couple more conservatives on the Supreme Court, Roe v Wade will likely be overturned and Scalia/Thomas may get their way in doing away with any protection for privacy rights under the Constitutution. There would be nothing to stop an all out ban on contraceptive devices.

</p>

<p>You forgot to mention that the sky will fall as well.</p>

<p>Common sense tells us otherwise. The majority of Americans are pro-choice. Abortion will never again be illegal.</p>

<p>Wait a minute - there is ONE way. If myopic liberals continue to derail efforts to win the war against Extreme Islamic Fundamentalism, women will LOOSE WAY MORE THAN THE RIGHT TO HAVE AN ABORTION.</p>

<p>The bright side is, we won’t have to worry about wrinkles or make-up anymore (at least while out in public).</p>

[kelsmom]

<p>Spideygirl, I am not so sure about that. The right to choose has not been a right for all that long … and there are some very rich folks who would like to see it go away. Money = power, unfortunately. I would very much like to think that the ruling will continue to stand, though.</p>