I know I'm a little late to the party but I have to comment on this anyway. Last week, I saw plenty of tweets and headlines mentioning Rep. Mike Kelly and his comparison of birth control coverage to attacks on the US such as Pearl Harbor and 9/11, but I just now actually watched the video of his speech.
So, as of August 1, the Affordable Care Act will provide free birth control coverage to women who have health insurance. And, according to Mike Kelly, August 1, 2012 should take its place in history alongside Dec. 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001 as an attack on this country. "I want you to remember August 1, 2012: The attack on our religious freedom."
Come on!! I mean seriously, even if you are so against the idea of birth control, birth control coverage as a part of health insurance, or even the idea of women having sex in general, isn't this comparison just a tad extreme?
Let's break it down, shall we?
Dec. 7, 1941: Japan manages a sneak attack on a US Fleet stationed at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.
Results: 8 battleships damaged, 4 sunk; 188 US aircraft destroyed; 1,282 Americans wounded; 2,402 Americans killed.
September 11, 2001: multiple buildings damaged or collapsed, including the two towers of the World Trade Center; citizens from over 90 countries were killed in the attack; 2,977 people were killed.
August 1, 2012: 47 million women gained access to expanded healthcare coverage; women gained coverage for preventative services such as check-ups, screenings, STI testing and counseling; of course, contraceptive coverage without co-pays; 0 battleships damaged; citizens from 0 foreign countries killed; 0 Americans killed.
I don't care how you feel about contraception, this is a ridiculous and offensive comparison. Taking care of America's women and their health is not the same as a surprise attack resulting in thousands of deaths. Who are the terrorists in this situation? Women asking for coverage? Doctors supportive of coverage? President Obama? Probably, from the standpoint of the Republican party, all of the above.
Birth control coverage does not equal an attack on religious freedom. What do the Republicans think of my right to healthcare? They don't. How does my receiving birth control coverage from my health care provider affect Rep. Kelly's religious freedom? My birth control pack isn't blocking his entry into his church. My healthcare provider isn't sending bomb threats to his church. I'm taking a pill, I'm not getting pregnant, and as far as I can tell, the lives affected by this are mine, my boyfriend's and my mother's (because she helps me pay for it).
Birth control coverage does not equal a terrorist attack. To Representative Kelly: Everyone in the United States was affected in some way by Pearl Harbor. It led to our entry into a war. It killed our friends and families, and even those with no direct ties to people killed, it caused fear and uncertainty, and the war affected everyone. Everyone in the US was affected in some way by 9/11. We were all terrified, we were all unsure, and, again, it led to a war. It led to taxpayers' money funding a war they didn't all agree with.
Women gaining birth control coverage does not affect Americans in these same ways. No one is dead because of it. Everyone will save money by helping women receive preventative (and cheaper) care instead of (more expensive) treatment for problems that went ignored because women couldn't afford to see the doctor.
If Representative Mike Kelly had more respect for both women and American history, he might think twice before making this kind of offensive statement. Instead, he is interested in playing with (and attempting to manipulate) the emotions of Americans, using horrific events in America's past to push an anti-Obama, anti-woman agenda.
See also: Rachel Maddow's commentary on this ridiculousness.
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label birth control. Show all posts
Friday, August 10, 2012
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Santorum: Better or Worse for Obama?
OK I'm just kind of thinking and writing at the same time.
I know that at the beginning of the Republican circus to find a candidate to run against Obama, Mitt Romney was the expected candidate. So the White House, I assume, has been planning their campaign strategy largely around defeating him. However, we all know the race has dragged on much longer than expected, and that with the recent wins in Mississippi and Alabama, Rick Santorum is still very much in the race.
I also know, thanks to Facebook, that many Democrats/liberal-leaning voters have been voting in Republican primaries to help Santorum win the nomination, the idea being that he's too extreme and will be easier to defeat than Romney. And I think this might be true.
But at the same time, is it good for Obama supporters to be helping Santorum into the race? I really am torn about this, so I would love some feedback. But Santorum has gotten more support than I would have expected (though maybe I'm still being naive, with the extremes that so many Republicans all over the country have been leaning toward). It's really terrifying to me that the man who has said publicly that he doesn't believe the separation of church and state should exist has gotten so much support. And as much as I like to encourage myself that liberal-leaners helped him to win in my home state, we all know that there were not enough of those voters to make much a difference. By and large, the Republicans in my home state have legitimately chosen Rick Santorum as their preferred candidate.
So if he is really doing this well among Republican voters, does he actually have a chance at defeating Obama? I hope not. I like to think that the Republican attack on women has gone too far, and will be a deciding factor for moderate and independent voters. As I heard some political analyst say on the news recently, "Abortion is a divisive issue. Contraception is not." This says to me (and I hope it's true) that the extremists of the Republican party are shooting themselves in the foot. I know plenty of young women who grew up in Republican homes who are on birth control (however, this doesn't necessarily mean that they voted Republican once they were of voting age; that I'm not sure about). I know of many young women who do currently identify as Republican who have spoken out against the personhood amendment and attacks on women. And I'm hoping that by having made contraception such a big issue, the Republican party is going to be motivating hordes of young people to head to the polls and vote for contraception, for women's rights, and, therefore, for Barack Obama.
But am I underestimating the amount of extreme conservatives in the Republican party? What do y'all think? Is Rick Santorum a better candidate in the long run for those of us who want Obama and his better-for-women plans to stay in office? Or is he proof that more of the country than I realized is extreme and not concerned with women's rights?
I know that at the beginning of the Republican circus to find a candidate to run against Obama, Mitt Romney was the expected candidate. So the White House, I assume, has been planning their campaign strategy largely around defeating him. However, we all know the race has dragged on much longer than expected, and that with the recent wins in Mississippi and Alabama, Rick Santorum is still very much in the race.
I also know, thanks to Facebook, that many Democrats/liberal-leaning voters have been voting in Republican primaries to help Santorum win the nomination, the idea being that he's too extreme and will be easier to defeat than Romney. And I think this might be true.
But at the same time, is it good for Obama supporters to be helping Santorum into the race? I really am torn about this, so I would love some feedback. But Santorum has gotten more support than I would have expected (though maybe I'm still being naive, with the extremes that so many Republicans all over the country have been leaning toward). It's really terrifying to me that the man who has said publicly that he doesn't believe the separation of church and state should exist has gotten so much support. And as much as I like to encourage myself that liberal-leaners helped him to win in my home state, we all know that there were not enough of those voters to make much a difference. By and large, the Republicans in my home state have legitimately chosen Rick Santorum as their preferred candidate.
So if he is really doing this well among Republican voters, does he actually have a chance at defeating Obama? I hope not. I like to think that the Republican attack on women has gone too far, and will be a deciding factor for moderate and independent voters. As I heard some political analyst say on the news recently, "Abortion is a divisive issue. Contraception is not." This says to me (and I hope it's true) that the extremists of the Republican party are shooting themselves in the foot. I know plenty of young women who grew up in Republican homes who are on birth control (however, this doesn't necessarily mean that they voted Republican once they were of voting age; that I'm not sure about). I know of many young women who do currently identify as Republican who have spoken out against the personhood amendment and attacks on women. And I'm hoping that by having made contraception such a big issue, the Republican party is going to be motivating hordes of young people to head to the polls and vote for contraception, for women's rights, and, therefore, for Barack Obama.
But am I underestimating the amount of extreme conservatives in the Republican party? What do y'all think? Is Rick Santorum a better candidate in the long run for those of us who want Obama and his better-for-women plans to stay in office? Or is he proof that more of the country than I realized is extreme and not concerned with women's rights?
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What's the Buzz? Tell Me What's A-Happenin'!
First of all, yes, that is a musical reference in the title of this post. No, Jesus Christ Superstar is not my favorite musical, but the song title was fitting. So here we go. I haven't posted in a while, and I feel like I've missed the chance to write about certain topics as they were still very current. So quick recap:
Obama reinforced his birth control coverage rule, making it clear that religious institutions are required to cover birth control for their employees with their insurance plans, regardless of their beliefs about birth control/contraception. As Laura Murphy said in defense of Obama's plan, “People are not being forced to adopt a new set of religious beliefs by this rule. They can practice their religion as they see fit, they can choose not to use birth control.” Thanks, Obama, for standing up for women everywhere!
The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure pulled funding from Planned Parenthood, supposedly because of a rule about funding institutions currently under investigation. After a huge outcry, the decision was reversed, and the VP Karen Handel has resigned. Jessica Valenti writes about the controversy, and the proof on online feminist activism making a difference, over at the Nation.
Prop 8, a California ban on same-sex marriage, has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The next step will likely be an appeal to the Supreme Court, but this is still a victory.
OK, I promise a real post in the next day or two. Thanks for sticking with me! And if I missed any current events, let me know in the comments section.
Obama reinforced his birth control coverage rule, making it clear that religious institutions are required to cover birth control for their employees with their insurance plans, regardless of their beliefs about birth control/contraception. As Laura Murphy said in defense of Obama's plan, “People are not being forced to adopt a new set of religious beliefs by this rule. They can practice their religion as they see fit, they can choose not to use birth control.” Thanks, Obama, for standing up for women everywhere!
The Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure pulled funding from Planned Parenthood, supposedly because of a rule about funding institutions currently under investigation. After a huge outcry, the decision was reversed, and the VP Karen Handel has resigned. Jessica Valenti writes about the controversy, and the proof on online feminist activism making a difference, over at the Nation.
Prop 8, a California ban on same-sex marriage, has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court. The next step will likely be an appeal to the Supreme Court, but this is still a victory.
OK, I promise a real post in the next day or two. Thanks for sticking with me! And if I missed any current events, let me know in the comments section.
Sunday, November 13, 2011
Paternalistic Pharmacists (and Politics)
In keeping with the theme of personhood, abortion, reproductive rights and so on, I want to discuss something I discovered awhile back when I was reading Jessica Valenti's The Purity Myth but hadn't found the time to write about.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
I've written about how the personhood movement aims to get rid of abortion, and could very well get rid of many birth control options as well. The sad fact is, though, that many women already have limited or no access to abortions or birth control because other people think they know better what's good or not for women.
No matter your feelings on abortion or birth control, the plain truth is that both are currently legal in the United States. Many pharmacists, however, refuse to give out prescribed medications if they have a moral problem with them. Valenti cites several occasions in which a pharmacist simply refused to provide EC (the morning-after pill/Plan B). The drug was approved in 2006 for over-the-counter sale, yet countless pharmacists have lied to customers to avoid selling the pill. One pharmacist instructed his staff to "tell the patient that he is out of the medication and can order it, but it will take a week to get here. The patient will be forced to go to another pharmacy because she has to take these medicines within 72 hours for them to be effective. Problem solved." Another pharmacist admitted that she and other workers weren't allowed to stock the medication at all, and to send it back if they got anyway, yet they always told customers that they were "out of stock." This pharmacist also witnessed a woman who had a prescription for Cytotec (a medication to help pass tissue after a miscarriage) and the pharmacist began to question the customer about why she needed it. Even with a legal prescription in hand, this pharmacist was immediately suspicious of the customer and felt that he knew better about what this woman should or should not be doing.
Valenti discusses these situations within the context of the virginity movement, but I find that they fit right in with the personhood movement also. Valenti writes, "Behind all this paternalism is a simple distrust of women. The virginity movement [insert personhood movement here] doesn't just believe that women can't be trusted to make decisions about their bodies--it believes men can make those decisions better."
Any movement that tries to restrict or get rid of family planning clinics, contraception, health insurance coverage for standard and necessary medical visits and procedures (pap smears, STI screenings, etc.) is a movement that that says women don't know what they want, what they need.
Well, it's not true. Women know what they want. We want reproductive health care. We want the right to family planning. We want contraceptive options. We want to make our own decisions.
Recently, Eve Ensler wrote a great piece about how she is "so over rape" and rape culture. Well, I'm so over small, extremist political groups trying to take over the country. I'm over men telling me that if I choose to have sex, even responsible and safe sex, then I should be willing to carry a baby. (I wish I could remember where I read/heard this, but it's my new favorite saying "Just because a woman consents to sex doesn't mean she consents to pregnancy.") I'm over being told that "good Christians" should control our legal system (here's where I would bring up the separation of church and state but we seem to be so beyond that it's ridiculous). I'm over being told that women lose their rights as citizens and humans as soon as they become pregnant.
I'm so over paternalistic politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)