AIDS Conference And War On Contraception Exposed
by Amanda Marcotte, RH Reality Check
July 28, 2008 - 7:00am (Print)
Subscribe to RealityCast:
RealityCast iTunes subscription
RealityCast RSS feed
Links in this episode:
Man on the street at Netroots Nation
O'Reilly vs. contraception
Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes
Clinton on HHS redefinitions
Worst phone message ever
Transcript:
This week on Reality Cast, we'll have an interview about the
International Aids Conference with a representative from Guttmacher, another
installment about the ongoing war on contraception, and a break from the heavy
stuff by mocking the sexist dating advice on the Tyra Banks Show. Also, a taste
of a phone message left by the worst person alive.
Thanks to everyone who agreed to be in our man on the street interviews at Netroots Nation. Here's a sample:
* insert netroots nation
As is traditional on these podcasts, I have a couple requests for listeners to help get the word out about RH Reality Check. First of all, go to rhrealitycheck.org to sign up for a daily email summarizing the news in reproductive rights that day. Also, if you could go to the Digg page linked from the transcript page of this show and Digg the podcast, I'd be most grateful. It really helps drive listeners to the podcast if it gets high enough in the rankings.
*************
Now more news on the ongoing and mostly underground war on contraception. And when I say mostly underground, I mean that it's becoming more and more above ground, probably because anti-choicers feel that they're really close to being able to push harder on this issue. One big initial issue is the fallout from John McCain being caught on video unwilling to say anything positive about contraception, and certainly unwilling to say that it's unfair for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not contraception.
Of course, the right wing surrogates jumped up to take it a step further and try to push Americans to the right on this issue, arguing that contraception should become controversial again, instead of just a normal part of life. Bill O'Reilly, functioning under his usual belief that women aren't quite human beings, led the brigade.
- insert oreilly contraception
In other words, men having sex in a medical necessity, but women having sex are just sluts trying to get away with something. The irony of this is that the worst thing that can happen to a man who doesn't have Viagra, medically speaking, is that he doesn't have intercourse and an orgasm. For a woman who is denied access to birth control, the medical effects can be hypertension, weight gain, searing pain, surgery, and even death. So O'Reilly thinks that a woman dying is less of a medical problem than a man having to skip the sex once in awhile. That's an unvarnished double standard, though I have no doubt O'Reilly would bristle if you called him sexist.
And who are these men that need sex supposed to be having sex with if women aren't supposed to be having sex? Each other? I suppose that's a solution, but not one that I expect a homophobe like O'Reilly to understand. Maybe he thinks Viagra is so you can get an erection to waggle at other men to show that you can do it, but not actually used for sexual intercourse.
The good news is that McCain's squirmy moment means that the anti-contraception agenda of the far right is getting mainstream media attention. Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow talked about it on MSNBC.
- maddow birth control
So that's some good media attention. I wish, however, that more attention was paid to why McCain is doing this little dance around an issue that is relatively popular, which is insurance coverage for birth control, which the majority of Americans rely on for a happy, healthy sex life. Or even if they don't need it, many support it on principle. He's doing it to kow-tow to an extremist right wing that needs to be exposed for the nutbars they are.
Which is why I'm glad to see Hillary Clinton lending her name to an effort to resist the HHS attempt to redefine the birth control pill as abortion under the Bush administration, in an effort to make it easier for health care providers to refuse to provide this basic medical service. Look: They don't really think it's abortion so much as they've realized that it's politically easier to turn people on fake abortions than it is to say, as Bill O'Reilly did, that your desire not to get pregnant is irrelevant. Most people don't experience the need to use birth control as irrelevant, nor do most people think of women as subhuman with interests we don't have to care about at all.
* insert Clinton birth control
*************
- insert interview
**************
Oh my god, I haven't checked over to the Tyra Banks Show's website in awhile, and I missed how they've got web exclusives with even more nauseatingly wrong-headed sex and dating advice on it. Most disturbingly, they had this woman named Patti Stanger giving her own version of The Rules for single women, and as you can imagine, they're horrifically bad rules and sexist to boot.
- insert stanger 1
Assumption: You, as a single woman, have nothing to do but date and can devote your every last hour on men, no matter how little you like them. Horribly sexist. This assumes that women live for men and men alone. When I was single, I barely had time for 3 dates a week for someone I was madly in love with, much less a bunch of dudes that I know I don't like. Because I have a life and a job. And a blog. The assumption is that single women make getting married their career, which doesn't correspond to reality.
Her next piece of advice is not to drink too much on dates, which is not bad advice, I guess, but I think she's offering it in bad faith. I think she's offering it because she wants your inhibitions to be up so you follow this next piece of advice.
- insert stanger 2
Assumption: Women have no sexual desires of their own, but simply view our bodies as currency to exchange for other things. In other words, every woman is a prostitute, except instead of selling your body for money, in this case, you're selling it for commitment.
This belief, that women only want commitment and men only want sex, and that relationships only happen after a tense exchange of the two like it's a financial transaction, is what guides abstinence-only education and even anti-choice arguments. See, if we chance getting knocked up every time we have sex, then we won't have sex without the wedding ring and tah-dah! Um, well, that's the only way we'll get married? I think that's the argument. Never mind that most people get married and 95% of Americans have sex before marriage. Maybe---and I know this is crazy feminist talk---a man commits to you because he loves you and wants to be with you. I know. Impossible. Even though plenty of experience out there says otherwise.
The next piece of advice is good, about how you need to be mindful of the fact that you inherit someone's debt when you marry him. That's why I think that debtor laws probably need to be reconsidered. But it's no wonder that women will marry men that bring all sorts of baggage in an environment where women are told that getting married should be their main and possibly only goal in life. Desperation invades at that point.
- insert stanger 3
Every girl wants to get married? Uh, well I don't. But then again, I call myself a woman, not a girl, so there you go. The idea that you should be announcing your engagement within less than a year of dating someone is the sort of thinking that leads straight to our high divorce rate. You can whine and bemoan our culture where people date for a long time before they get married, but you'll be contending with statistical evidence against you. People are dating longer and marrying later in life, and this is leading to a drop in the divorce rate. The rush to the altar is a quick way of legally binding yourself to someone you don't know very well. Hell, I wasn't even willing to talk about moving in with my boyfriend until we'd been dating a year. What's the harm in going slow and protecting yourself? With her timeline, you'd probably not even have a chance to figure out if you're sexually compatible before you get married, which is not to say the other compatibility problems that would arise later if you don't know the person you're marrying.
***********
And now for the Wisdom of Wingnuts. A phone message left for a woman met on the street by professional anti-feminist and pick-up artist wannabe James Sears got released online.
- insert douchebag call
It was so hard to figure out what part to sample from this. The entire thing was just an amazing example of male entitlement. At no point does he even pause to consider the idea that she's not calling him because he's anything less than the greatest guy on earth.
He's bitter and started an anti-feminist cottage industry after his medical license was stripped because he was caught sexually assaulting female patients.
Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte
So now that the Contraception/Viagra health insurance discrepancy has been uncovered as a myth by factcheck.org, will there be a retraction of this story?
Because we have video. That he said what he did is what this piece is about, not whether or not some insurance companies have complied to legal and social pressure to be fair. And even then they half-assed it.
Now that we've established that you were using a red herring, why don't you go ahead and attack the meat of the argument? Do you agree/disagree that McCain couldn't answer the question?
It's obvious he couldn't answer the question. But you assume to know the reason WHY he couldn't answer it. I certainly don't know why he turned into a bumbling fool.
"...being caught on video unwilling to say anything positive about contraception, and certainly unwilling to say that it's unfair for insurance companies to cover Viagra but not contraception."
See, this point you try to make is so dumb. He couldn't say anything positive? So what? He couldn't say anything negative either. Why wasn't he willing to say it's unfair for insurance companies to cover contraception, but not Viagra, as is the policy of so many insurers.
It's a simple question---is it fair to cover Viagra and not birth control? You don't need to know the statistics on who does and who doesn't to say if it's fair. And actually, he does know where he stands, which is that he voted to give them the right to deny birth control. He just knows that saying that it's completely fair to jack women while patting men on the back for having sex won't sit will with non-wingnuts.
But you're the one really arguing in bad faith here. You've made your anti-contraception stance clear in the past. So why are you suddenly defending insurance companies that cover it?
I defend insurance companies having the choice (you should know that word well enough by now) to decide for themselves what they want to cover in a free market. Being that I am anti-contraception, I can choose a provider that doesn't use my premiums to help cover a woman's birth control pills. And you can choose a provider that DOES cover your birth control pills. I can go to a pro-life pharmacy and you can go to Walgreens.
It seems to work out well, except there are advocates like yourself who want Big Government forcing pharmacies and insurers to carry drugs and services against their will. Why do you want that choice taken away?
What if I think that an insurance company should have the right to deny anti-contraception crazies coverage, on the grounds that misanthropy shouldn't be subsidized that way? Gosh, now that's illegal.
If we get the "free market" out of this, your desire to discriminate against non-Catholics for our beliefs will hopefully become less of an issue.
So you redirect the topic to accusing the largest charity in the universe of misanthropy...
Like you say, "Nice dodge. So instead of dealing with what I ask, you're going to be maudlin."
I find this idiotic.
"forcing pharmacies and insurers to carry drugs and services against their will"
Well if a pharmacist doesn't have to dispense medication on the grounds of personal belief, then I don't have to teach sections of the curriculum that I disagree with. Oh wait, yes I do. Because I took a job knowing that I have to teach the whole curriculum, not just the parts I agree with. Like a pharmacist knows his job is to dispense medication as ordered by doctors, no matter what that medication is. Like the job of a soldier requires that you kill, even if it's against your morals and values. Like the job of a defense attorney requires that you defend criminals, even if you are anti-crime. Like the job of a McDonalds employee is to flip burgers, even if you are Hindu and find cows sacred. The bottom line is this: if you can't do your job, take another job. Nobody's forcing Quakers to become soldiers, or Hindus to flip burgers, or Jews to work on the Sabbath. And nobody's forcing Christian right-wingers to become pharmacists. But if they choose to become pharmacists, they should be required to do their job and dispense medication as directed by a doctor.
Oh, and birth control is used for tons of things other than preventing pregnancy. I was on birth control years before I was sexually active because of extreme menstrual pain. Are you seriously saying that the insurance companies should pay to get an old mans wanker hard, but not pay to ease my intolerable monthly pain? I'm the one with a medical condition. The other guy is just old, which as far as I know, isn't considered a disease.
Also, if the insurance company didn't cover either, it would be a different situation. There would be no sexism, there would just be an insurance company whose coverage sucks, and we could all stop talking about this crap.
Yay you, you have a choice when it comes to your health care provider. I don't. I get what my employer chooses. Lucky for me, it covers my BC.
Sure, technically I could go out and purchase a plan all on my own if my employer decides to switch to an insurance plan that doesn't cover BC. Practically speaking, though, there's no way I can afford that. Ergo, practically speaking, I, and millions like me dependent upon employer-provided health care, do not have a choice.
And on another note: Not everyone is lucky enough to live in a town where there is a choice in which pharmacy to go to. Not everyone can take an afternoon off work to chase around town to find a pharmacy that will fill her prescription. Pharmacies should be required to have on staff at least one pharmacist that will fill all prescriptions.
'Sides, if I became a pharmacist, could I deny you Viagra because helping old guys get erections violates my religious beliefs? How about if I were a Scientologist and didn't believe in psychiatric medications, could I deny someone their Prozac? What if I didn't believe in any type of medical intervention at all, could I deny everyone their prescriptions?
Or is it only okay if it's a slutty slut slut who wants to have sex for pleasure instead of procreation? (Oh the horrors! Sex for pleasure! Where are my pearls and my fainting couch!)
I wrote about this at my own blog, but I just have to say that while you (and I) see the Ms. Stanger's dating advice and immediately recognize it for the tripe it is, I worry that some teenage girl will hear it and decide that it makes sense--and that following it would be a good idea. Nevermind that all the ideas about women in it would then be true in her mind. I'm twenty...I know how susceptible I was to things like that a few years ago. Anything that purported to help me understand my boyfriend or the dudes I had crushes on, I'd try to follow. Ergh.

