Posts tagged contraception
Posts tagged contraception
Birth control when they want to invest, abortion when they want to deny access to women.
Never mind that their health plan covered said objectionable contraceptives until 2012, when they chose to file suit against the Affordable Care Act….
First off, just stop. Your boss doesn’t get to dictate what you do with your paycheck, whether it’s buying groceries, donating it all to orphans, or splurging it on hookers and blow.
Your boss might take issue with you buying pork because he’s Jewish, donating it to orphans because she thinks they’re godless, or on the hookers and blow because that’s not very Christian of you. However, your bosses would be ridiculed for thinking they have the right to tail you to make sure you’re spending YOUR money in accordance with their faith, right? There’s not much difference here. Set aside that the insurance is not directly offered by Hobby Lobby, or that they could pay taxes/penalties instead of lawyers and legal fees by kicking everyone onto the exchange, thereby taking away their supposed moral conundrum. Spoiler alert: HEALTH BENEFITS ARE COMPENSATION FOR YOUR LABOR. Why would you think for one second that your boss gets to dictate what you do with your compensation?
Second, I want you to try a thought experiment. Let’s say the owner of a for-profit business is a devout Muslim. It is forbidden in the Muslim faith to consume pork. You’ve gone to the doctor for pneumonia, and your doc gives you antibiotics. Unfortunately, many medicines in gel capsules contain gelatin, which is usually derived from animal protein. Due to fears about mad cow, it’s more common for it to be derived from pigs. Your boss claims to have the right to bar you from taking that antibiotic because your health plan is paid for in part by the company, so therefore your boss gets to dictate the company’s (their) religious belief trumps your doc’s opinion because the for-profit company is an extension of their faith. Can you imagine the pearl-clutching if Muslim business owners told these good Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) that they could not have potentially lifesaving medicine because of the owner’s beliefs? Richard Dawkins might stroke out from rage. Fox News might never recover. Michele Bachmann would require a fainting couch for the resulting vapors.
How about if it’s medicine in a gelatin capsule for high blood pressure, depression, or even erectile dysfunction medication? How about if your devout Catholic boss would only cover erectile dysfunction for married men because premarital sex is a sin, and ONLY if said medication was used with no contraception and in pursuit of conception because sex is only for procreation and every sperm is sacred? Or dictating no treatment for HIV or AIDS because only “sinners” get it and their god says no dice?
Or what if your boss says no insulin because it was derived from animal protein long ago or no Heparin to treat a blood clot because it still contains animal tissue, and their vegatarianism is a deeply-held belief too, isn’t that kinda sorta like religion, please Justice Scalia?
I cannot wrap my head around Hobby Lobby’s view that medical treatment is their business because said treatment might maybe have something to do with their employees doing the sex on their time away from work — y’know, their private lives. Not all contraceptives and reproductive health visits are for preventing maybe babies — hormonal contraceptives have a myraid of uses beyond preventing conception. The only time the sex lives of Hobby Lobby employees is their business is if employees are boning on the clock — THEN Hobby Lobby has every right to say “No sex time ‘til break time, please.” They can’t say, “No sex time ‘til ring time, please. Because Jesus.”
Working for a for-profit employer in the U.S. does not mean you must also swallow their religious dictates hook, line, and sinker. To claim otherwise in the name of religious freedom is a complete fallacy and wholly offensive to the very idea of religious freedom itself.
[Image text]: “Every health benefit policy that is delivered, issued, executed, or renewed in this state or approved for issuance or renewal in this state by the Insurance Commissioner on or after the effective date of this subchapter that provides coverage for prescription drugs on an outpatient basis shall provide coverage for prescribed drugs or devices approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for use as a contraceptive.”
Behold, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, signed by then-Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2005. A rational law, mandating the coverage of contraception by health insurance providers in Arkansas.
Fast forward nine years later, and government mandates about contraceptive coverage are because “Uncle Sugar” thinks women are libidinous moochers. So which is it, Mike Huckabee?
I have a soft spot for Dear Abby.
(h/t to Teabonics)
This statement is an example of doing it right. In other words, our founder might be batshit, but dammit, he doesn’t speak for the company in which he plays an active role. Now, pizza time.
Dear Wheaton College,
This is you:
This is my brain:
Why? Because the stupid literally hurts. You’d think this is something your lawyers would check on before going all religious martyr for the cause in court…
You’d think that.
Wyoming’s own professional creeper, Foster Friess, making an offhand comment to NBC News after a group of women gave him directions in the lobby of a hotel in Aspen, Colo. Seriously. Here’s the context:
NBC News intersected Friess as he walked with other donors from the lobby of an Aspen hotel to a nearby restaurant. He wore a white straw-style cowboy hat and paused to ask directions of locals. A group of women pointed him in the right direction. ’Women are God’s most beautiful creatures,’ he said as they walked away. ‘After the white-tailed deer and the swan.’ Friess was scheduled to meet on Wednesday afternoon with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, to whom he said he would write a check.”
In summary, one of the largest donors to the GOP thinks women are “creatures” versus big, burly menfolks, and slightly below white-tailed deer and swans. Probably because we’re big ol’ sluts, amirite?! At least according to Foster.
In my day, also known as the present, women are free to use contraception and have sex. Or not. If you can’t handle that, perhaps you should stick an aspirin between your teeth and hold it there. It’ll keep you from staying stupid shit and it isn’t that costly.
Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. comparing the birth control coverage requirement under the Affordable Care Act to 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.
To Rep. Kelly, evidently the now no to low-cost proper care and maintenance of ladyparts via preventative care is just like that one time thousands died when terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers. IT’S JUST LIKE THAT YOU GUYS!
These things have one thing in common: Nothing. I didn’t fly a plane into your place of business or home, killing scores of people, just so that I could get yearly gynecological exams and breast cancer screenings counted as things which must covered. Nor did any other person. So no. It’s not like those dates that really will live in infamy.
See, what happened is this thing called “a law” was passed by elected officials in the U.S. House and Senate. Now bear with me here… after that, President Obama (or, as members of your ilk call him, that Kenya Muslim Socialist Zombie Nazi) signed the law. Then, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law. It’s not like you didn’t know this was coming, bro.
So no planes. No blitz-attack terrorism. Just government doing its thing.
Now, go find a corner, sit in it, and think about what you’ve said. When you’re ready to be a grown-up, we’ll talk.
I’ve lost most of my faith in humanity.
CNS News is Cybercast News Service, and used to be called the Conservative News Service. It’s run by
Thurston Howell III L. Brent Bozell III, the nephew of William F. Buckley and was the chief fundraiser for Pat Buchanan’s failed presidential bid. He also helped swift-boat John Kerry in 2004. Charming fellow really.
An example of the comments on this article:
RhettButler1: At this time, we have an administration that spits in the face of average and normal Americans. Instead, this administration promotes the agenda of extreme groups like the far left gays, drug dealers/users, illegals and sluts. If you stand back and look at the situation you see the influence of the Ghetto based morals of Obama and his Chicago thugs. Some of you will slam me for this but you know I’m correct. Just look at what happened in Detroit when the Ghetto base gained control. You cannot deny that no matter what you say or what you do. Political theft and corruption destroys civilization…
bsfurg: If the American had any brains they wouldnt have gotton pregant in the first place and the pills dont cost that much any way.. it was pure lax of taking responsibilty for the women.. so lets just see if thies takes c are of Aborting.. three should be any more abortions now that the Women of the USA have free sex… sorry i meant pills..
Hey, do you guys remember that one time that Jesus saw Mary Magdalene, and she came up to him, and he was all like, “Yea, I say unto you, be gone slut!” Then he and the apostles had this big dinner right before he got killed, and he looked around and said, “For this is one big room, full of bad bitches, and it is good.”
Is my memory flawed? Must be too much CNS News.
Rebloggable by request:
I’m visiting my dad and he’s insisting Obama starting the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Help!
Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:
Nope. Thank this guy:
That would be Richard Milhous Nixon, the 37th President of the United States. Planned Parenthood’s federal funding was started by Nixon under Title X. Here’s his statement on it:
"I called for a national commitment to provide adequate family planning services within the next 5 years to all those who want them but cannot afford them. It was clear that the domestic family planning services supported by the Federal Government were not adequate to provide information and services to all who want them on a voluntary basis.
To implement this national commitment, I asked for expanded research in contraceptive development and the behavioral sciences, reorganization of family planning service activities within the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and legislation which would help the Department to implement this important program by providing broader and more precise legislative authority and a clearer source of financial support. The National Center for Family Planning Services was established in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare shortly after my message.
The bill before me today, the “Family Planning Services and Population Research Act of 1970,” completes the legislation I requested in my message on population. This measure provides for expanded research, training of manpower, and increased family planning services. In addition, it provides for the development of family planning and population growth information and education.
It is noteworthy that this landmark legislation on family planning and population has had strong bipartisan support.”
See, back in the day, the Republican Party was much less against contraception and family planning than they are now. Let me repeat that: Republicans in 1970 were more supportive of welfare, contraception, and access to both than they are now. Tell your dad “citation needed, bro.”
Bonus points! Here’s why public funding of contraception is important from the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute:
• Publicly funded family planning services help women to avoid pregnancies they do not want and to plan pregnancies they do. In 2006, these services helped women avoid 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 860,000 unintended births and 810,000 abortions.
• Contraceptive services provided at publicly funded clinics helped prevent 1.48 million of these unintended pregnancies; the remaining 450,000 unintended pregnancies were prevented among Medicaid enrollees who received publicly funded contraceptive services from private physicians.
• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be nearly two-thirds higher among women overall and among teens; the number of unintended pregnancies among poor women would nearly double.
• Contraceptive services provided at Title X-supported centers helped prevent 973,000 unintended pregnancies in 2008, which would likely have resulted in 432,600 unintended births and 406,200 abortions.
• The services provided at publicly funded clinics saved the federal and state governments an estimated $5.1 billion in 2008; services provided at Title X–supported clinics accounted for $3.4 billion of that total.
• In other words, nationally, every $1.00 invested in helping women avoid pregnancies they did not want to have saved $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures that otherwise would have been needed.
Tell your dad to email me. He sounds interesting.
Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt Romney’s senior campaign adviser, claiming issues like contraception coverage and abortion rights, were “shiny objects” being used to distract voters.
Not a social issues election?
You can’t fire up the culture wars as an entire party and then have the nominee’s spokesman trot out to the Sunday morning shows and say, “Lulz, j/k!” when you’re losing said war.
Women’s rights and reproductive rights are “shiny objects” and nothing more?
Remember this in November. Remember, if you give a damn about women’s rights, access to contraception, and reproductive rights in general, the Romney campaign thinks you’re being distracted by shiny objects.
Oh, and access to contraception and reproductive health services is very much tied to the economy thankyouverymuch.
Women, especially young childless undecided women voters, are talking about jobs, not abortion rights, right? What women really care about is not contraception, not access to family planning resources, not social issues like gay marriage, abstinence-only sex “ed” or Mitt Romney’s 50 year old bullying. Nope – it’s the economy. Women, “like everyone else,”– that would the norm – men, just want to be able to go to work, earn a fair wage and support their families. These “social” things are a “distraction” leading Americans to avert their gaze from what’s really important: the economy. Polls are clear: jobs and the economy are their number one concerns.
This oft-repeated juxtaposition, superficial and irresponsible, between The Economy and Social Issues (especially, in polls, “jobs” and “contraception”) is like a political media Greek chorus. People believe it, especially women who are disinclined to think about themselves as discriminated against by virtue of their sex. Young women answer these questions and pollsters ask them the way they do based on the assumption that women, armed with education and “girl power,” have equal access to newly created jobs and will be paid fairly for their work. Those are false assumptions that women, especially young childless ones, need to consider before they vote, because this year’s elections, both state and presidential, will affect their ability to do both for years to come.
We’re engaged in a mass delusion that misleadingly pits The Economy against what are at their core, Reproductive Rights. Don’t be fooled when considering who to vote for – women can’t participate equally in the first until they have the second. The very phrasing of the questions and the reporting of the answers hide the complex and interdependent relationship between the two. Contraception, reproductive rights, gay marriage (defined as it is by conservatives as a threat to male/female hierarchies) – all have critical implications for women’s economic well-being and for the economy at large.
Insistence on splitting these two concerns is particularly useful to Republicans, because it allows them toblame women’s economic woes on their “choices,” a specific irony. If a woman gets paid less or doesn’t have a “seat at the table” it’s because she chose a lower paying job, or because she chose to have children and works part-time, or she chose to not complete her education. If women make “bad choices” it’s their own fault, their decisions and they have to pay the consequences. Which gets us to the second half of this equation. Simultaneously, for the “less important” Social Issues, the word “choice” is completely anathema to Republican legislators and presidential hopefuls. Girls and women cannot possibly be trusted with “choices” when it comes to their own bodies, sex ed, birth control, health care, sexuality, domestic violence and marriage.
Most importantly, however, in terms of the economy, is that what all of these secondary-in-importance social issues boil down to is that women especially cannot be allowed to “choose” for themselves when to become mothers – arguably the single most important contributing factor to their, and our economies, long-term well-being.
What single factor arguably has the greatest impact on a woman’s work life? In other words, what enables women to participate in the economy and become productive workers and engines of economic growth and expansion?
That would be motherhood.
So, even single, childless, undecided women who may one day get pregnant, should consider what happens to a woman when she gives birth:
- She is 44% less likely to be hired
- She makes 11% less than her non-mother female counterpart (who is already just making 78cents to the male dollar)
- She is less likely to go to school or complete her education.
- She works part-time with more frequency, so that she can provide child care for which she is uncompensated and can derive no benefits as child care is invisible labor.
- She is less able to work overtime.
- She is unable to get maternal health care coverage as part of a basic insurance policy. Already discriminated against by gender rating in insurance prices, she is now doubly financially harmed by the fact of her parenthood.
- She is more likely to have to limit herself to lower paying job sectors where she thinks she will have more “flexibility” even though this has been proven not to be the case.
- She is more likely to be impoverished and become state dependent.
And, what is motherhood? In it’s simplest terms, it is reproduction.
Control of reproduction is an economic issue. This isn’t an academic abstraction, it is a practical reality for any human endowed with a uterus.
This is why instead of The Economy and Social Issues being unrelated as people keep suggesting, they are integrally related. The very nexus of The Economy and Social Issues then, from a policy perspective, is the question “Do you believe women should work, for (fair) pay and outside of the home?” Republicans do not. That’s why their dedication to controlling female sex and reproduction is an economic policy choice – it affects women’s abilities to pursue education, get hired, be paid, stay in the workforce.
If you believe yes women should be able to work and be paid fairly outside of the home, then you do everything possible to create family friendly work structures, fair pay regulations, health care access, planned parenting provisions, that enable women to do just that. If no, then you don’t. You do the opposite. You create a disabling “social issue” legislative scaffold on which to build a “it’s your own fault” Temple to Patriarchy. This is precisely what the Republic party is doing. If you are an undecided woman voter you should pause to consider the impact of these intersections on your own life and the lives of other, often far less privileged, women.
As it is now, even for a woman who has access to birth control, health care, safe and legal abortion, becoming a mother in this country, planned or unplanned, is the single worst economic decision a woman can make. She is still cobbled by inadequate health care, higher gender-rated insurance premiums, discriminatory pay, poor return on her educational investment, greater responsibility for child care and an inability to save effectively for security in her old age.
Republicans have shown repeatedly and without remorse that they want to keep women vulnerable, dependent and at home:
- Lilly Ledbetter? What’s that? “Money is more important for men.” I finally support it, but (wink, wink) my surrogates will make sure it never happens. Fair Pay in Wisconsin? Don’t want to force employers to prove they are paying women fairly. Definitely don’t want to “clog up the legal system” unless, of course, it’s to send black boys and men to jail.
- Domestic Violence? Let’s make sure the Abuser Lobby is happy, given the mail order bride business and more, and ensure that women most vulnerable to violent abuse are isolated and left even more at the mercy of mostly men who will rape and beat them without recourse to the law.
- Reproductive Freedom? Let’s pursue husbandry-informed blunt force trauma legislation ensuring that women’s bodies and reproduction stay in the control of men. Eliminating Planned Parenthood, making it hard to find birth control and abortion services, mandating transvaginal ultrasounds that women themselves have to pay for, requiring waiting periods that require expensive travel – all of these things impede women’s freedom and ability to compete fairly in the job market.
- Health Care: What, you mean the stuff that keeps people healthy and able to go to work? Hell, no. We’ll not only fight against affordable health care (the opposite of which is unaffordable health care) but we will also stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood, even including monies dedicated to non-abortion services like…family planning – often the only services that poor women have access to. Title IX? The only federal program devoted to family planning, you almost cannot make this up it’s so ridiculous: Romney will eliminate it entirely, to save money for The Economy.
- And yes, even Mitt Romney’s 50 year old bullying of a gay boy. Why? Because the exact same attitudes that informed that incident inform his support of abstinence-only education, gendered societal roles, fair pay provisions, reproductive freedom – namely, there are rules, boxes which people are supposed to fit into – and when they don’t conform to his world view they should be punished and forced to. The roots of his high-school bullying escapades and his “Social Issue” policies both reside in an inability to empathize with people who don’t look like and sound like him. It’s why he saw nothing wrong in explaining that Ann Romney was responsible for translating females. Empathizing with women is just not a possibility if you’re a man.
All of these issues profoundly affect women’s ABILITY TO ENGAGE FULLY AND EQUALLY IN THE ECONOMY WITHOUT PENALIZATION. If Republicans were serious about their commitment to women’s unimpeded equality in the workplace, then they would not insist that “social” policies are unrelated to “the economy” and they would not be pursuing broad legislation that affirmatively harms women’s ability to participate in the economy on multiple levels. Basic control over her own body, that would be reproductive freedom and health care that is affordable, non-discriminatorily priced, and relevant to her body and not men’s, affects whether a woman can seek and complete her education. The type of job she can get. How many hours she can work. If she can afford to start a business. Whether or not she can work full time or has to work part time. Whether she can afford childcare and health care, if she works. Whether she can safely leave an abusive spouse without fear for her children and seek work to support herself.
That’s why Social Issues, like contraception, are ABOUT The Economy not separate from it.
All of this, yes.
Rick Santorum totally doesn’t want to talk about contraception. It’s the media’s fault, remember? Tom Tomorrow sums up Santorum’s points nicely.
Seriously. He really said he has not mentioned contraception during his campaign.
Remember this, Rick?
"One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country." — Rick Santorum, October 2011
I am too tired for this fuckery. Jezebel has the money shot:
Rick Santorum went on MSNBC’s Morning Joe this morning where Joe Scarborough asked him if he regrets bringing the issue of contraception into his campaign. Rickles got flustered and turned pissy fast. He said, “I’ve never had any record or anything about talking about access to contraception.”
Wait… found some responses:
Oh, and this one:
Ooh, one more:
Yes, Rick. You did mention contraception a few times, and you are a lying oxygen thief. That is all.
Yep, Uncle Freddy’s Miserable Miscreants are at it again:
Westboro spokesman Steve Drain told Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch that the church had some commonalities with Limbaugh, although he declined to say specifically what they were.
"The ad’s message will be that America is doomed because Americans have cast aside the standards of God, and won’t quit their proud sinning," Drain explained.
Drain told Raw Story that while his organization has had their differences with Limbaugh, they were on the same page when it came to labeling Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke a slut. “Even a blind hog can get an acorn every once in a while,” Drain explained.
"That lady basically believes she wants the government to pay to kill her babies," Drain said. "That implies a certain level of promiscuity. She wants to fornicate her brains out, but she doesn’t want a child. Sounds like a slut to me, and God hates sluts."
A fox can smell its own, no? Rush Limbaugh and Westboro Baptist Church… I imagine the love story began like this: