The war on sex

One reason I get so angry at the pro-life movement is that it seems more about anti-sex - geared specifically at women. The best evidence I can show you of this--- comments from one of the proponents of the abortion ban in South Dakota. According to him, it may be okay for a woman to get an abortion in the case of rape, provided she meets some "standards."

Senator Napoli of Rapid City: "A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

So the only real rape is when the girl is "religious" and "virginal." Lovely.

But now the issue isn't just about abortion, it's about having the right to choose our reproductive destiny as women.

I have never understood why the pro-life movement and us pro-choicers could never find common ground... I mean, if we both want to prevent abortions, let's work together. But the anti-choice people want to do more than stop abortion.

Recently I posted about my insurance company and how it would not cover contraception. I have received several comments from people who are angry at women - like myself - who expect this type of coverage. They tell me I should "stop whining.""Giving birth is a miracle. be happy you're a woman" and "it's not sexist because men don't get spermicidal birth control covered."

Most recently I got this comment:

Drugs perscibed to men for birth control (spermicides) are also not covered by most insurance companies. The idea behind this is that you're putting drugs into your body that you could live without.Your blog is very public, and your argument concerning sexism is being ridiculed by more than just me.

Okay, let me explain why this argument is insane!

There is a big difference in birth control for men and birth control for women.

First of all, nothing physically happens to a man if he impregnates a woman. If a woman gets pregnant, her entire physical condition is compromised. Not just for nine months of her life but for months following. There are also extreme health risks involved in pregnancy.

Pregnancy for a womean also means interfering with whatever plans she has. For example: If a married woman is pursuing a difficult career – let’s say - making partner at a law firm, birth control would be essential for her and her partner. Otherwise she could lose career opportunities during maternity leave and in sick time during pregnancy—not to mention doctor visits.

AGAIN: Pregnancy does not effect a man’s health or interfere with his job.

For tens of thousands of women suffering from heart or kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, as well as other illnesses, the availability of contraception is essential to protecting them and ensuring they can continue having healthy, safe sexual relationships without risking their lives.

AGAIN: A man does not have to fear death as a result of having sex and becoming pregnant.

That’s not to say I don’t think men should have their family planning medications covered. I will say it again—insurance companies would save thousands if they put money into family planning--- but as you can see, it’s quite a bit more essential for women. Not only that, birth control pills or patches are WAY more effective than spermicide.
From plannedparenthood.com

Of every 100 women who use the pill, eight will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Fewer than one will become pregnant with perfect use.

FEWER THAN ONE!

In the case of spermicidal products…
Of 100 women who use it, 29 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Fifteen will become pregnant with perfect use.

Therefore these products are not comparable in efficiency. And the price comparison is also self-explanatory…

The pill: $35–$125. The cost depends on your income at some family planning clinics. Whereas spermicidal cream kits are about $8.

So please don’t come on my blog and tell me it’s “public” – I know that. I mean for Lord’s sake, I opened a website! I’m aware. You, however are most certainly NOT aware.

Many women cannot “live without” these drugs. And if you paid attention you’d know that. People who don’t believe in contraceptive coverage – YOU are the minority. The majority of Americans, support a women’s right to affordable access to birth control.
If you watched the news, you would know this.

“Two female plaintiffs, one from Missouri and another from Idaho, won an important victory late Friday when the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska ruled that Union Pacific’s decision to exclude prescription contraception coverage in its health plans for unionized employees is sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

And that was Union Pacific, a Fortune 500 company and the largest railroad in North America!! More than 48,000 employees located throughout the nation will benefit from this new ruling.

So where does that leave your argument?

FOR MORE INFO: http://www.covermypills.org/