Jason, I find it interesting that in the entire article that you reference  (Contraception: Why Not?) there was not one mention of the Winnipeg Statement which reflects the dissent within the Catholic Church regarding artificial contraception... I believe it is worth noting that there are various viewpoints regarding this issue within the Catholic Church.

The idea that the healthcare providers should pay for birth control is to say they should pay for condoms.

 

Your entire rant is nonsensical and does not reflect a compelling reason why birth control should not be paid for by our health care providers.  And as an aside, condoms are not a prescription medicine - birth control pills cannot be purchased over-the-counter - why shouldn't insurance companies pay for prescription birth control if they pay for other prescription drugs and devices?  It is imperative that women's health-care issues are addressed by insurance providers; having access to contraception is crucial for women (being able to control the timing and/or spacing of children reduces the occurrence of maternal death, low birth weight babies, and infant mortality).  Simply because you don't believe that contraception is significant to women's health-care does not make it so.

Well, if the point is that a woman who CHOOSES to have sex must take the consequences, then that is a damn good arguement for all women to join the New Lysistrata Rebellion. Tell every heterosexual man you know that since the consequences of heterosexual sex could be pregnancy, you will abstain from now on. That's right : total abstension from every form of heterosexuality. No intercourse , no blow jobs, etc. So tell the man in your life he'd better make friends with his left hand, because you are going to be abstinent.
It just amazes me that men preach abstinence who are not willing to be abstinent themselves. Don't they realize that whenever a woman abstains, the man with whom she might otherwise be "making woopee" is also going to have to abstain (unless he can find a more foolish woman).
Why are we not instead saying that if a man CHOOSES to engage in heterosexual intercourse, HE has to be responsible for the consequences ?? If pregnancy results and abortion is unavailable or not choosen as the answer, then that man has to be responsible for fully HALF the total costs of rearing the child and likewise has to do fully HALF the actual work of child-rearing. Is not the man as responsible for the CHOICE of intercourse as the woman is ?? Does it not "take two to tango"?
The above refers to mutually consensual sex. As we all know not all sex is consensual. But we also know that it is damn hard for a woman to coerce a man, but not at all unheard of for a man to coerce a woman.

Now the other aspect that Anonymous refers to is COST. If COST is his real issue, and I'd agree it is a legitimate issue, then he should recognize the economic realities. It is very cheap to provide contraception, whether providing it through an insurance plan (which the user does pay for , either directly or indirectly when it is part of compensation for employment) or providing it as a welfare freebie. Contraception is a damn sight cheaper than pre-natal care and childbirth care. Contraception is cheaper than aborting all uncontracieved unwanted pregnancies. Contraception is a damn sight cheaper than welfare payments for raising an unwanted child born to the woman who couldn't afford to pay for her own contraception or abortion and certainly cannot afford to rear the child. Contraception is cheaper than costs of public school for that child. Contraception is cheaper than taking an unwanted and neglected child into Child Services and paying for its foster care for years and years. Contraception is cheaper than the extra Police work and prison time that so often results when a child is unwanted, resented, and poorly reared. Abortion is also a damn sight cheaper than any of these financial impacts of an unwanted pregancy unwillingly carried to term.

Birth control is not always a "choice" and it is NOT something taken by "irresponsible" women or sluts. It is often taken by women whose lives would be in severe jeopardy without it, at risk of hemorrhaging or an ectopic pregnancy. Some women taking birth control aren't even having sex. And many women who have abortions do so at length after discovery the pregnancy is not viable, or their baby has terrible genetic defects that would prevent life. Sometimes they have abortions because they need treatment for cancer or other treatments that require a pregnancy to be aborted before the treatment can be given.

Birth control and condoms are VERY different, condoms do prevent STDs but birth control often saves a woman's life or gives her a much better life. Check your male privilege at the door and stop using sexist language. The right to have a healthy life and reproductive choices are not the same as a breast augmentation.

Then don't ask us to pay for your limp dicks.

Isn't it cheaper to pay for the birth control, than to... lets say, pay for several full term births? What happened to the united states objection to "welfare queens"? As a tax payer, I want my taxes to go toward birth control for women who can't afford it. Truth be told, a lifetime worth of birth control for one individual costs less than the doctors bills that WILL be paid on behalf of these women when they become pregnant. Who do you think pays for this prenatal care?! THE TAX PAYERS!

Use some logic.

Actually many Viagra prescriptions have more in common with elective plastic surgery than birth control pills ever could. Often Viagra is prescribed for impotence that is normal in aging.

If we should pay for a limp dick due to aging then why not pay to fix the problem of saggy skin on his face with a face lift? If having the same sexual ability of a young guy in ones later years is an entitlement, why not the same face?

Great point....Your choice but we pay for it...

Actually, I think birth control should definitely be compared to erectile dysfunction. You're arguing that birth control is a "life-style" issue whereas erectile dysfunction is "medical issue." Leaving aside, for the moment, all of the medically bad things a pregnancy can do to a woman, erectile dysfunction is also a life-style issue. Erectile dysfunction doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's caused by diabetes, hypertension, other medications, etc. Viagra does nothing to treat those other conditions. All it does is treat a LIFESTYLE complication. So, if you're not going to pay for a "lifestyle" drug for women, we shouldn't do it for men, either. We'll pay for the diabetes, but that's it.

Well I agree with 90 percent of your comment. The only part is abortion. I don't agree with killing a living being. Sorry but i do agree we should not pay for women who make a mistake or the guy for that matter.

Viagra : Sildenafil relaxes muscles and increases blood flow to particular areas of the body.

Sildenafil under the name Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) in men. Another brand of sildenafil is Revatio, which is used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension and improve exercise capacity in men and women.

Be the change you seek,

Scott Swenson, Editor

then you must error on the side of life and equate abortion and birth control

Just what kind of half-assed comment is that? Why not be accurate and just say "err on the side of the fetus"? That way you show people where you stand - against women.

1- educate yourself by first buying a dictionary or learning to use spell check. It's spelled SIMILAR.

2- educate yourself on what birth control does- primarily, preventing the egg to be fertilized in the first place, and secondly preventing that fertilized egg from being implanted.

At which point to you refer to as conception? When the egg is fertilized? Birth control prevents that from happening in the first place.

THANK YOU for a reasonable, logical and compassionate comment! Though I don't refer to myself as a Christian, I agree with most of your points. And I believe that a majority of religious people in this country believe as you do, but unfortunately, as usual, the vocal minority gets much press. Very well said.

How many ridiculous comments can there be?
As many people who follow Hillary Clinton.

Bush did not try to block all contraceptives.
In fact he did not try to block contraceptives.

But you would have to be able to read or listen to newscasters who read to know that. Certainly not Hillary Clinton who misleads people on a regular basis to get her way.

Bush was trying to stop those drugs which kill a fetus.
If there is a fetus then you have already conceived. There is already an unborn baby. Condoms & other Contraceptives would not have been affected at all.

Considering that he's recently said that mental distress "wasn't a good-enough reason" for a woman to have an abortion, and has mouthed fundie platitudes about abstinence education and how sex is "sacred," I'd say that women absolutely have the right to wonder how diligent he'll be about protecting choice.

How dare you tell others they should be ashamed of thier opinion? No one is telling you to go get an abortion. We are simply sharing our beliefs. I read your response and understand why you think that way, but I would never tell you to be ashamed of your opinion just because I believe different. Can't we show each other some respect?

Feel free to volunteer as a surrogate womb for unspeaking unborn babies.

So by your logic, the woman that was raped had a _choice_ to have sex and conceive that child? The definition of rape is that she didn't.

Will you tell a married woman that she either a) can't have sex with her husband or b) can't have access to severely teratogenic drugs that are necessary to maintain her health and ability to function, because she also b) can neither get access to the birth control necessary to reliably prevent pregnancy or have access to an abortion in the case that that birth control fails? Will you tell a couple that both carry the Tay-Sachs gene that again, they can't have a normal marriage and/or don't have the right to decide to end a pregnancy where the child will be born with a horrible death sentence? (Tay-Sachs children have no hope; they are born normal, they start to deteriorate within a year, and die in horrible pain.).

Things like this are not black and white. As far as "looney tunes," not everyone believes in the "second the egg meets sperm" definition of the beginning of life, or even that implantation is where life begins.

Anyway, I'd rather worry about the living, breathing, walking children in our country that no one speaks for, that live in substandard conditions or suffer in abusive homes or are lost in the worst part of the foster care system. How about you go adopt and care for all those kids, and _then_ come back to us and yell about the innocent unborn children that have no one to speak for them?

What about the children who were wanted but HAD to be aborted because their pregnant mother (who is also a life that must be protected) needed treatment for cancer or another treatment that requires the pregnancy be aborted? What about all the pregnancies that were wanted and cherished but HAD to be aborted?

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/

Someone has to fight for lives without a voice, it's true: the life of the mother carrying that unborn child. If you want to speak for children, speak for the ones outside their mother's womb who are young girls and won't have access to the health care they need.

AS you out it so sucinctly put it the way to get rid of this is with a new government. Women need to be aware of McCain's record with respect to women's health issues. Denying birth control only creates more need for abortions. Better access to birth control is the way to reduce them. As this isn't rocket science I would have thought the president could actually understand it. Shame on me, I know better...

Since I didn't vote for him, I damn well don't deserve it, thanks very much.