About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Kicking the Egg
Author: Raine    Date: 02/09/2012 14:20:05

Mother Jones has and excellent essay on the newest fake controversy rumbling around America. This article nailed almost all my points.
Yet in the past six months, social conservatives have widened their offensive, and their new target is clear: Not satisfied with making it harder to obtain legal abortions, they want to limit access to birth control, too.

"Contraception is under attack in a way it really wasn't in the past few years," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "In 2004, we could not find any group—the National Right to Life Committee, the Bush campaign, anyone—that would go on the record to say they're opposed to birth control," adds Elizabeth Shipp, the political director for NARAL Pro-Choice America. "We couldn't find them in 2006 either, and in 2008 it was just fringe groups. In 2010, 2011, and this year, it's just exploded."

Even previously uncontroversial ideas about contraception are now being questioned. As I explained in this story about Obama's birth-control policy, most of the administration's recently-issued rule requiring companies to provide birth control to their employees has been widely accepted federal law for a decade. Requiring employers to provide birth control if they provide other preventative services was so uncontroversial that most employers—even Catholic universities like DePaul, in Chicago—simply changed their policies and offered birth control to avoid being sued. The percentage of employers offering birth control coverage tripled in a decade. The national controversy only erupted after Obama issued the new rule in January.
I could go on and on about this utterly horrific attacks on women over the past few years. 28 states already have this requirement -- as do federal employees. That includes elected officials and their wives and children.

So why are Boner and others threatening to overturn this rule?
“In imposing this requirement, the federal government is violating a First Amendment right that has stood for more than two centuries. And it is doing so in a manner that affects millions of Americans and harms some of our nation's most vital institutions," Boehner said. "If the president does not reverse the [Health and Human Services] Department’s attack on religious freedom, then the Congress, acting on behalf of the American people and the Constitution we are sworn to uphold and defend, must."

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who introduced a bill last week that would allow religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other organizations that morally oppose contraception to refuse to cover it for their employees, said no decision has been made on the timing of bringing legislation to the floor. Asked if he sees any middle ground with the White House, he proposed letting individual churches choose whether to pay for contraception for their employees.

Under the administration's rule, churches and houses of worship are already exempt from the general requirement to provide birth control coverage.
I suppose now we are being forced to comply with religious institutions because of the first amendment? I'm not really sure it works that way.

One would think that after the Komen outcry messing with women's health issues would not be such a smart move. Even some Pro-choice Republicans agree:
“For the last number of years, we in the pro-choice community in general — and we specifically as Republicans — have been saying as this pandering to a sort of social conservative faction of voters continues, you’re going to see the line pushed further and further and further,” she said. “And we’re now crossing the line from discussion of when we should regulate abortion to when we should now regulate legal doctor-prescribed medications like birth control, which is woven in the fabric of society as an acceptable medication.”

She pointed to widely-reported polling showing that a majority of Americans — and a majority of Catholics — support the White House policy and urged her party to take a step back before it’s too late.
I'm deeply dismayed that people actually are having a hard time with the concept that no one is being forced to take the medication. Institutions aren't even required to pay for them -- this is a dictive to health insurance companies to include it in their employer-based insurance plans. Churches are exempt; however, the institutions they run that employ people outside the faith of the church are not. I know a lot of people that are not Catholic but work at a catholic hospital. Should they be forced to live under Catholic dogma?

It's as simple as this: no one is being forced to take the pill. It is simply being made available to any woman who wants access to it. The numbers vary, but I have read that it costs women between 600-1200 dollars a year with insurance to pay for the ability plan their childbirth decisions. Let's not forget that many women take the pill for reason others that not wanting to get pregnant. This is not an all inclusive list:
• Alleviation of menstrual cramps
• Reduction of amount and duration of menstrual bleeding
• Regulation of periods
• Clearing up some types of acne
• Lowering the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers
• Treatment of endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome
Providing women with the chance to be relieved of these ailments - along with preventing unwanted pregnancies - will ultimately SAVE money in the long run for everyone, including employers. Prenatal, Natal, and Postnatal care is very expensive. Insurance companies will pay less for birth control than the cost of giving birth.

If men can have easy access to male enhancement drugs it seems like a no brainer that women should have access to a long-accepted and legal medication that improves the lives of all. Besides, I'm pretty sure that employers cannot use religious affiliation as an excuse to be exempted from labor and tax laws. Denying women access to birth control would then become gender discrimination. That is just begging for a lawsuit.

It shows a complete lack of trust from the Catholic church to the GOP in a woman's ability to handle her own health issues. The GOP can't even be bothered to come up with a jobs bill and but they always have time to attack the hard-fought rights of women. If one doesn't want birth control, then one doesn't have to take it. In the meantime, I hope they stop inflicting religious dogma on those that really need the help. It's more than about getting pregnant -- it is a health issue and once again women are being used for political fodder.

and
Raine

74 comments (Latest Comment: 02/09/2012 23:31:35 by Raine)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati