Why is the debate over contraception coverage a women’s issue? I know a lot of heterosexual men, and my understanding is that they have as much of an interest in controlling whether and when to have children as women do.
Contrary to what you might think, the vast majority of heterosexual American men do not view sex the way Catholic bishops are required to. So shouldn’t someone be asking men, too, how they feel about whether insurance coverage for contraception is important as a public policy issue?
17 Comments for “Sex Without Babies”
posted by Sex Without Babies | QClick Radar on
[…] Without Babies Independent Gay Forum Fri, March 9, 2012 5:11 AM UTC Independent Gay Forum Rate Loading … Share (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); […]
posted by Lonnie Lopez on
Better yet, men themselves should be speaking out for themselves on behalf of contraceptive coverage. But they don’t. So, because no man has ever been pregnant and no man is likely to become pregnant in the foreseeable future, women, by necessity, have to speak out.
To answer your question, no “someone” shouldn’t be asking men how they feel. They should be saying how they feel without having to be asked. Only conservative men need to be asked.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s appalling that in 2012 people are still so ignorant about contraception. Or perhaps they’re just too lazy to remember to put on a condom or take a pill? In any case the number of unwanted pregnancies is disturbing. (as is the number of people continuing to spread disease)
posted by Regan DuCasse on
This doesn’t have to be about SEX at all. Contraceptives treat or prevent other serious conditions in females. Such as endometriosis, fibroids, prevention of ovarian and uterine cancer. All of which put fertility at risk, but are debilitating and extremely painful conditions.
I’m one of them. When I was 13 years old, I needed birth control pills to take the edge off some horrendously painful PMS. I tended to get fibroids, one of which ended up in a breast. Growing to the size of an orange. And something I had complications with.
I’ve seen where pharmacists decide to not fill prescriptions based on their religious beliefs, but their PROFESSIONAL DUTY to understand that contraceptives have alternative uses and to fill the prescription as required.
The Catholic church, if it cannot keep up with the times and engage in the full spectrum of medical care for the health and well being of it’s members, then they can’t and shouldn’t be in the HEALTH CARE business.
It’s HEALTH CARE, there is an obligation to ‘first do no harm’.
Eventually the cystic and fibroid issue became LIFE THREATENING to me, and I had a complete hysterectomy. Fairly young too.
So I DON’T appreciate all this high and might ‘religious objections’ bullshit when it comes to restricting the needs of females. Whose issues are all much more complex than they are for men. Whether to get pregnant or NOT. Whether pregnant or not, health complications can occur throughout a female’s lifetime.
If a CC medical insurer will only deal with part of it, much to the detriment of the females in the mix, then they should just STAY A CHURCH and not do anything with regard to health care at all.
Modern medical technology will inevitably complicate religious ethics at some point.
One always has a choice in what way to practice their religion.
One NEVER has a choice as to what medical need might arise, and who will be most able to treat it.
posted by Charlesriver on
If certain medical conditions require this medicine for treatment, then cover it for THOSE specific diseases. Otherwise, BUY YOUR OWN BIRTH CONTROL.
posted by Lymis on
Pregnancy IS a medical condition. One that frequently carries potentially severe health risks.
The medical choice to prevent pregnancy is as valid as the medical choice to prevent diabetes or heart attacks.
posted by Houndentenor on
It seems to me that men have had more than enough to say about reproductive rights over the years. I’d rather hear from women since they are the ones who have to carry the baby and like it or not are held to a higher standard of responsibility once the baby is born. (Note: I’m not saying that’s right. It’s just how it is.) When a Congressional Committee decides to hold hearing on this issue and calls not one woman as a witness, I think it’s ridiculous to wonder if men will get their say. Men have always had plenty of say in what women could and couldn’t do. Too much say, if you ask me.
posted by JohnAGJ on
As long as they pay for it themselves they can say all they wish about it. I oppose paying for contraception for both men and women as well as Viagra, vasectomies, etc. These fall under elective procedures and one should be responsible enough to take care of it themselves instead of demanding a handout from everyone else.
posted by JohnAGJ on
Abstinence works 100% of the time. If you want to have sex and put yourself at risk, whether as female for getting pregnant or a male to being financially liable and both for STDs, then take your butt down to the local gas station, drug store, etc. and buy a pack of condoms. If you want some other kind of contraceptive, then feel free to get it. Yet in all cases pay for it your damned self!
posted by Houndentenor on
Where did you get the idea that you are paying for anyone else’s contraception?
posted by JohnAGJ on
If my tax dollars aren’t going to pay for it, or my premiums increase on my insurance, then get all the pills and condoms you want on your own dime. Yet I’ve been lied to all of my life by politicians on both sides about these nifty programs and mandates which always, ALWAYS end up costing me more money. I don’t believe them anymore. They can take their mandates and proposed new programs and shove ’em. In the days of “jobless recovery”, trillion dollar deficits budgeted for at least a decade or more, impending bankruptcy of existing social programs like MediCare, I’ve had enough of selfish people with an entitlement complex demanding that others pay even more for the latest greatest thing that everyone simply MUST have. I don’t care if it’s “fair”. I could care less whether it’s “for the children”. I’m done. I will oppose this and every single new proposal like it whether it involves social programs, defense or whatever. When what we already have is really and truly fixed and the debt we’ve accumulated to date has been servied, then we can talk about “something else”. Until then, forget it.
posted by charlesriver on
“Better yet, men themselves should be speaking out for themselves on behalf of contraceptive coverage. But they don’t.”
Maybe because most of us believe that WE decide which issues are important to us. Stay in your own lane missy. The fact that you seemingly believe that YOU define issues for all men is indicative of your self-entitled arrogance.
posted by clayton on
The very definition of self-entitled arrogance is a church hierarchy composed *entirely* of unmarried,theoretically celibate males passing judgment on contraception issues.
posted by Houndentenor on
It’s equally ridiculous for people to sit in the pews on Sundays and listen to this crap and then ignore it the rest of the week. Change will only come in the RCC when the people stop donating and participating. The cognitive dissonance that characterizes American and European Catholicism just guarantees more of the same.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
As I understand the narrow issue — the women in question were students and they were paying for some sort of health insurance program, but it did not include birth control (no matter the specific reason).
I can understand the need for religious exemptions in the law, the First Amendment being what it is, but I can also understand the need for adults (men and women) to reproductive freedom. Both of which need to be respected and taken seriously which does not seem to be happening.
For example, their is potentially a BIG problem if anyone or any entity can be exempt from any law because ‘God told me to do it’.
Likewise, it is fair to objectively look at the real world challenges facing women and access to birth control.
If your health insurance plan does not cover birth control, and you need it for a medical reason, which does not only mean standard ‘sex without babies’, then how do you get if you cannot afford it?
posted by Jorge on
I’ve given my opinion. I think the goal of subsidizing all contraception coverage is a dubious one given how cheap condoms are.
I also think that, while religious authorities should be deferred to on religious matters, a heterosexual woman’s opinion on the pure contraception debate should probably carry more weight than a gay man’s.
posted by Houndentenor on
I’m waiting for the women to go on strike. Surely someone besides me has read Lysistrata.