Posted on 02/15/2012 2:37:54 PM PST by Kaslin
I can't believe that I actually agree with something President Obama has done. Granted, I'm one of those conservatives who has never subscribed to the full-meal-deal checklist, preferring to critically consider whether each of my positions is the most logical and sensible given the available information and my own values. Usually that process results in coming down on the "right" side of things. In this case, though, I somehow find myself in the odd position of agreeing with Obama and being rather miffed at his opponents.
The president's new birth control plan would insure coverage of women's birth control without co-payments or deductibles. Sounds fair, especially given that men's anti-impotence Viagra treatments have been covered by insurance plans for years. Some, including CNN's Jack Cafferty, have argued that impotence is a medical condition but birth control for women is optional. Really? This implies that sex for men is mandatory at all costs -- to the point of paid hydraulic assistance, if necessary -- yet women should be able to take it or leave it. But pregnancy is a medical condition -- one that some of us want to avoid as much as men do impotency. And in neither case is "just don't have sex" a realistic solution for any halfway normal human being with reproductive drive in its prime.
Others argue that men aren't getting their birth control paid for, so why should women get theirs covered? News flash: It's the woman's inescapable lifelong burden. Women have babies, regardless of whether the man sticks around. If she gets pregnant, the costs are hers to bear -- or, if she can't manage, the state's. A few extra dollars invested to prevent the creation of future welfare recipients -- not to mention abortions -- seems like a good trade-off.
Leave it to Facebook, that Petri dish of blowhards, to unveil some doozy responses, like, "Most women on birth control still get pregnant, so this is a waste of money." Given that women can live their entire lives on birth control and never end up pregnant, I'll just go ahead and call you-know-what on that. Another added, "Taking birth control to prevent pregnancy is like wearing a bulletproof vest to prevent yourself from getting murdered." Guess what? If a "bullet" gets through with one form of birth control, there's another called the morning-after pill that will prevent it from doing "full damage," if you get my drift. Which is all the more reason to ensure its accessibility.
Yet another argument was, "Why do I have to pay for other people's sex?" Look, by joining a health plan -- privately managed or otherwise -- you're already paying for other people's smoking, sex or lack thereof, alcohol overconsumption, poor food choices and so on. What does it matter if you're paying for the schmuck down the street to shove that extra donut into his face, or for a college student to have safe sex? If any religious entities object to birth control for women they don't know or support, perhaps they could first decline tax exemptions on the basis of benefiting from the same public pool into which these same women pay taxes?
Speaking of which, it's the 21st century. Can we not accept that both men and women are driven by sex as much as by food, and that any differentiation between the genders in this area has long been socially mandated through shaming and derogatory labeling of women who enjoy this very basic human and survivalist drive as much as men do? It's difficult enough for society to collectively accept sex as being just as normal as eating -- but it is. Both are basic, innate pleasures of being human. Yet we're bombarded with food shows, food magazines, food discussion forums, food classes, endless food banter at house parties. Just try doing any that with sex in polite company. Food and sex are on exactly the same level for us as human beings in our basic drive for survival.
There's still an overall taboo around sex that promotes rampant ignorance and prohibits rational consideration of its rightful place in our lives. Hopefully moves like this that destigmatize non-reproductive sex will take us one step closer to breaking that taboo so we can enjoy, among other things, a better quality of political candidates who aren't automatically disqualified for admitting they enjoy sex just for the fun of it.
what a ditz...I guess even they want to call themselves conservatives because it’s the ‘in’ thing.
It's all relative; all the people she parties with probably insist on killing the baby and saving the convict! She only wants everyone else to pay for her choice of behavior.
The “give me a tax cut and let me kill my baby” conservative.
First, it is nonsense to pretend that the HHS mandate had something to do with birth control accessibility. Contraceptives are already at the point of total market saturation. You can ”access” them for free at every County Health Department, every University Student Wellness Center, and every Gay Men’s Park ‘n’ Spark, and for about the cost of a Hershey bar at every Wal-Mart, every Food City, every truck-stop and every Bubba’s Beer and Bait.
They couldn’t be more accessible if they bagged them up with the M&M’s.
There is no possibility of a challenge to contraceptive accessibility, which no conservative candidate ---Santorum or anybody else -- could curb any more than he could curb the dewfall.
Second, it’s certainly not an issue of “choice.” All users are choosers, and don’t need my tax money or my online banking password in order to do it. There's no reason for this to be a public issue, because it is a private choice of goods and services that can be regulated very well by the market, especially if (as the author says) there is overwhelming public demand for it. Pay for your own chewing gum, and welcome to it, honey.
Third, we’ve got these truly existential issues of the flogged and prostrate global economy, the shredded Constitution, the disastrous foreign and military policy decisions of the past 4 years, the Obamunist tyranny, and self-described "conservative" pundits are going to respond to the Democrat tom-toms and start chanting, “the Republicans are gonna grab my NuvaRing”?
Please. This is misdirection. And it’s so obvious it makes the "My First Crayola Pack" look subtle.
I was going to highlight some examples of the author’s irrational and deranged baby-hatred, but the baby on my lap is going to fall off if I use both hands on the keyboard for more than a moment.
She obviously subscribes to the “Pregnancy is an illness and motherhood is death” viewpoint of Zero-bama and his possessed minion, Sebelius.
Read it a bit too fast. Thought it said 'birth certificate'. My bad.
She doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. Completely ignorant lipflapper.
Almost never.
Please re-read ALL that what I wrote. I am not falling for anything.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I somehow got on the dnc mailing list when I did a poll about how bad romney is. I decided not to unsubscribe so I could see first hand what the dimocrats are up to. So this is what I got today. By the way, I sent a reply saying:
“Must the party lie to win? I researched this and found what your saying is totally false.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
email from the DNC
Linda —
This is just unconscionable: Republicans in Congress are trying to make it legal for ANY employer to deny birth control coverage to their employees.
Yes, you read that right. Republicans are on track to give corporations the power to deny women access to health care.
The vote is set for this week — we must act IMMEDIATELY.
We must raise $50,000 by midnight tonight to get activists mobilized and ads up and running in Republican districts about this atrocious assault on women’s health care.
Will you contribute $3 or more right now to our urgent Women’s Health Rapid Response Fund?
We can’t afford to fall short and delay taking action for another day. Women across the country deserve to know that right-wing Republicans intend to take women’s health care back to the dark ages. Please give what you can today.
Rep. Diana DeGette
Co-Chair, Pro-Choice Caucus
Contributions or gifts to the Democratic Congressional Campaign are not tax deductible.
Paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee | 430 South Capitol Street SE, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 863-1500 | www.dccc.org | Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies
this is Obama WH trying to morph (and succeeding) birth control and abortion into the same issue.
Dick Morris did a good analysis of this.
Obama wants the issue not the solution.
did you know that viagra has a legit use as a blood pressure medicine for the heart?
though the other use produces more school girl giggles.
was not directed at you per se.
If a "bullet" gets through with one form of birth control, there's another called the morning-after pill that will prevent it from doing "full damage," if you get my drift.
No, Ms. Ignorance Marsden, if a "bullet" gets through (barring a blown-out condom) the woman will not know it until she misses her period and gets a positive pregnancy result. By which time it will be far, far too late for the morning-after pill, and just in time for abortion if she is so minded, but perhaps that is entirely in keeping with Marsden conservatism.
And all that is besides the point of the first amendment issue of religious liberty, also unprotected in Marseden conservatism.
Something like five pills of Viagra a month with a co-pay of $10 a pill is typical.
Does the analogy to birth control still hold?
And what if a man does not care to leave his potential fatherhood in the hands of his female partners? Does his insurance company owe him a supply of condoms?
I think she means the Government should be able to force women to give away sex, after all, it's a basic human need.
Rachel Marsden (born December 2, 1974 is a Canadian conservative political columnist, geopolitical strategist, author and television commentator based in Paris. She writes an internationally syndicated weekly column for Tribune Media Services. She also teaches at Sciences Po University in Paris.
Marsden first came to public attention for her role in the Simon Fraser University 1997 harassment controversy, and was the focus of media coverage for tumultuous breakups with a Vancouver radio host, an Ontario police officer, and the co-founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales.
In 2004, Marsden was given a conditional discharge with one year of probation for criminal harassment of her boyfriend, a Vancouver radio show host, following a breakup. In September 2007, a relationship between Marsden and an Ontario Provincial Police officer ended. She posted his photo and identified him on her blog as an anti-terrorism officer who had leaked secret anti-terrorism documents to her. The officer filed a complaint of harassment against Marsden, but this was later dropped. The OPP launched a separate internal investigation into the alleged conduct of the officer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.