<p>I’ve had several discussions with antichoice people who insist that “life” begins at “the moment of conception.” </p>
<p>But, I say, according to everything I’ve read, conception is a process, not a moment. Is a woman “pregnant” when a sperm penetrates one of her eggs? Or is she pregnant when that fertilized egg successfully implants in her uterine lining? I tend to think that an ob/gyn would say the latter. If then, even. And recognize that some enormous percentage of fertilized eggs naturally fail to become pregnancies that last beyond the next menstrual period: perhaps 70%? I don’t recall the exact figure.</p>
<p>As someone one said, if you belief that “life” begins at “conception” in that sense, then you ought to be holding funerals for tampax and maxipads.</p>
<p>If Roe v Wade falls, and I believe it will if we elect a Republican, then it won’t matter what the majority of the country thinks. Each state will decide so the laws will vary from state to state. I live in a state in which I feel pretty secure but there are states that are very conservative. I care about what happens to women there too - especially poor women who may not be able to easily travel. Then there will be the return of laws concerning the legality of crossing state lines to get an abortion. It was just in 2003 that the Supreme Court had to tell Texas that it couldn’t outlaw consensual sexual acts between same sex couples. Take a look at abortion laws in South Dakota - the sky has fallen there.</p>
<p>I get why women are angry about this and I STRONGLY disagree with the reason behind not insuring bc pills but I do get where it can be argued that bc pills don’t fall under insurance coverage.</p>
<p>Viagra is insured because it helps treat a legitimate condition.</p>
<p>BC Pills when you get down to the basics are something that isn’t necessary to be taken for your health. A woman can easily be celibate.</p>
<p>While I believe it would be disastrous for BC pills to be uninsured. It can’t be argued that BC pills treat any type of condition.</p>
<p>That isn’t true. I was on BC pills to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome, a legitimate condition. They help to bring about menstruation for women who wouldn’t otherwise be having it, and balance hormone levels, which can cause all sorts of symptoms for women with PCOS.</p>
<p>^^^
Yes that is true, but that isn’t the reason the majority of women take BC pills. They take it because they have sex and don’t want to deal with the consequences. </p>
<p>I don’t know if any insurance companies insure condoms but I’m pretty sure they don’t. If they don’t insure condoms why should they insure BC pills for women that don’t “need” it. And if they do insure condoms why should they?</p>
<p>Kenshinsan…I am perplexed by your statement…“woman can easily be celibate”…and I am guessing you feel man can not…now…moving on to a important discussion…</p>
<p>I had the same reaction to Kenshinsan’s post. Why can’t men be celibate? So they take Viagra but women can’t take bcps; what is the predicted result? More children. Barefoot and pregnant seems to cover it.</p>
Condoms aren’t a prescription medication, so they aren’t covered under a prescription medication plan.</p>
<p>My prescription medication insurance covers things like pain medication, which is often not medically necessary. After all, they are not necessary to be taken for health, and people can easily grit their teeth and suffer through the pain, right?</p>
<p>I’m talking from the perspective of an Insurance Company. Their decisions on what to insure and what not to, are not or rarely ever swayed by the social implications of their decisions.</p>
<p>From an Insurer’s perspective:</p>
<p>BC Pills shouldn’t be insured for those that don’t need them to treat any disease, condition, etc…</p>
<p>Viagra treats a condition. It is taken to fix something that has gone wrong. BC pills don’t fall under that definition.</p>
<p>While I feel that I am completely right in my previous assertion, I can say though that I don’t totally understand why insuring BC Pills would be something the insurance companies wouldn’t support. I could only think that covering the costs of childbirth and a whole child till their 18 has to be a much more costlier endeavor…</p>
<p>And yes I do feel that a man can be celibate but that is irrelevant to the conversation and the point I was making. And you know what I meant by “easily celibate”…</p>
<p>Pain medicine is something that has been shown to greatly aid in any healing process. Take away the pain meds from a car crash victim or an amputee and see how easy it is to administer care. In almost all cases where pain meds are prescribed they are a necessary medication. Anyone can see that comparison is asinine.</p>
<p>p2n: How’s this for crabbiness: I wish that insurance companies would stop covering Viagra. It would greatly reduce the number of Spam messages I receive trying to get me to buy viagra (cheap! effective!). I will spare this PG audience the rest of the messages.</p>
<p>Well then… why not support having BCP’s sold over the counter? Its a shame that the FDA feels that people need to be protected from themselves, so won’t allow sales of OTC (over the counter) BCPs, and insurers love any excuse to stop paying for a given medication. What a trap.</p>
<p>Works for me, marite. I’m not completely sure why it would be covered in the first place. As for BCPs, that’s debatable…but an MD should still be involved due to the non-trivial number of deaths from blood clots, I would think.</p>