US - Sandra Fluke - Rush Limbaugh Controversy

LittleBook

We've been talking lately about reproductive rights and a while back about slut-shaming and I came across this article on a site I use:

http://mommyish.com/childrearing/sandra-fluke-slut-573/

The Wikipedia page sums the whole situation up pretty well. It's long but it's a fascinating read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh_%E2%80%93_Sandra_Fluke_controversy

To cut a long story short, Sandra Fluke (a 31-year-old law student at Georgetown University) argued before a Democratic Policy Committee that university student health insurance plans should cover contraception. She said that over the three years as a law student, birth control could cost $3,000, that the 40% of Georgetown Law School's female population suffered financial hardship as a result of the fact that birth control was not covered and that the lack of free contraception coverage in the university insurance plans would induce many low income students to go without contraceptives.

She told anecdotally of a friend who suffered from pcos and was prescribed contraceptives as a treatment but the insurance company still refused to cover it.

Enter Rush Limbaugh, a conservative (to put it mildly) talk-show host and influential Republican. His is the highest-rated talk radio programme in the US. He's no stranger to controversy (see Barack The Magic Negroe or "Michael J. Fox is faking it") but this is the latest.

Limbaugh's (public) response to Fluke's argument (which was recorded but not broadcast) over the course of three days (this wasn't just a knee-jerk reaction):

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope.

So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.

Now, read the Wiki article and you'll see the backlash, this hasn't gone unremarked. Obama has expressed his support personally for Fluke. The President and Dean of Fluke's university have criticised Limbaugh. Sponsorship and advertising was withdrawn. Even a few Republicans criticised him.

And here's a great student protest against a university professor who publicly agrees with Limbaugh:

http://mommyish.com/stuff/rush-limbaugh-rochester-university-216/

But you know, the ad revenue will slowly trickle back as the furore dies down and as far as I know Limbaugh is still broadcasting. He is, after all, the highest rated talk-show host in the US. It would be easy to describe him as "cuckoo" if it wasn't so popular, and he's popular for opinions such as this.

Presumably his listeners, if they continue to listen, agree with him ... not just on the issue but that it's acceptable to call a young woman a slut or a prostitute because she believes (as I do) that "her" contraception (it's clearly only the woman who is responsible for contraception) should be covered by health insurance ... I mean really, how selfish of her.

krudler

Limbaugh is a complete gobsh1te, is she looking for the pill to be covered or condoms? or both? the pill should be as already said as if helps with pcos and is prescribed and women take it for various reasons, but condoms? they're not expensive and family planning clinics and the like give them away for free so thats on yourself to provide them imo.
His remarks about calling her a slut are ridiculous alright, but he's always been the ultra-conservative loon of the US airwaves.

There's a lot of ad drops:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17263546
http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/03/05/438178/10th-advertiser-bonobos-drops-limbaugh/


there was also this disturbing fallout from it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?detail=hide&via=blog_482812
and an update on that one:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071265/-An-Update-Our-FIRST-meeting-with-the-school-is-done-?via=user

Honey-ec

krudler wrote: »

Limbaugh is a complete gobsh1te... he's always been the ultra-conservative loon of the US airwaves.

This. It's the Kevin Myers effect. Just because people are listening to him, doesn't mean they're all agreeing with him.

LenaClaire

krudler wrote: »

Limbaugh is a complete gobsh1te, is she looking for the pill to be covered or condoms? or both? the pill should be as already said as if helps with pcos and is prescribed and women take it for various reasons, but condoms? they're not expensive and family planning clinics and the like give them away for free so thats on yourself to provide them imo.
His remarks about calling her a slut are ridiculous alright, but he's always been the ultra-conservative loon of the US airwaves.

She was looking for the birth control pill, not condoms. The university they go to is catholic so the university's insurance refuses to cover anything that can be used as birth control even if it is being prescribed for another purpose.

This whole thing kicked off because Obama is trying to make insurance companies be legally required to cover birth control even if the employer running the program wants to not have it covered due to moral/religious objections.

The irony is that Rush was caught trying to smuggle Viagra into another country when he was on holiday... and guess what the insurance problems have absolutely no problem paying for... Viagra.

jaja321

The man is a complete nutter.. he later 'apologised' for using the words slut and prostitute saying that by using those words he had stooped to the level of liberals. He's insane!

LenaClaire

jaja321 wrote: »

The man is a complete nutter.. he later 'apologised' for using the words slut and prostitute saying that by using those words he had stooped to the level of liberals. He's insane!

Yeah, and he never apologized for saying that if the "tax payers money" goes to pay for her birth control she should be forced to set up a webcam so they could all watch her have sex and get value on return for their money.

jaja321

jujibee wrote: »

Yeah, and he never apologized for saying that if the "tax payers money" goes to pay for her birth control she should be forced to set up a webcam so they could all watch her have sex and get value on return for their money.

I know - he's such a creep. I've been following this quite a bit on NPR lately, its really interesting that, yet again, the whole debate in the US is going back to social issues, and attacks on women's health, when the economy is still in a shambles

Malari

Disgusting. :mad: Even the fact that he says "she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills" shows how little he understands women's contraceptive health. As if you take more pills if you have more sex :rolleyes:

LittleBook

krudler wrote: »

Limbaugh is a complete gobsh1te, is she looking for the pill to be covered or condoms? or both? the pill should be as already said as if helps with pcos and is prescribed and women take it for various reasons, but condoms?

Birth control pill, and not just for pcos sufferers.

krudler wrote: »

Limbaugh is a complete gobsh1te ...
His remarks about calling her a slut are ridiculous alright, but he's always been the ultra-conservative loon of the US airwaves.

Again, however much I agree with you, I think it’s too easy to dismiss Limbaugh as a loon … a loon who more people listen to on the radio than any other person in the US, a best-selling author who is (for the most part) encouraged, supported and praised by one of the parties in a two-party system.

Honey-ec wrote: »

Just because people are listening to him, doesn't mean they're all agreeing with him.

I don't see why would anyone listen to this kind of (ultra-conservative) broadcasting if they didn't, on some level, agree with it.

bluewolf wrote: »

there was also this disturbing fallout from it:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/04/1070800/-I-ve-spent-the-past-2-days-trying-to-convince-my-16-y-o-she-is-not-a-slut-?detail=hide&via=blog_482812
and an update on that one:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05/1071265/-An-Update-Our-FIRST-meeting-with-the-school-is-done-?via=user

What a bunch of coconuts. And I seriously wonder if it was the doctor or one of the teachers who spilled the beans.

It just appears to me that there is an increasing wave of political opinion in the US that not only wants to block any progression in the area of reproductive rights, but also wants to chip away at what rights have already been achieved.

jaja321

This is an interesting article on his appeal... http://www.alternet.org/media/130912


"...Like Sarah Palin, his spiritual bride.." :pac:

howsyourtusk

More evidence of the war on reproductive rights in America, scary, scary, scary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dHlk_qAnDc

Morag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZK75pXLlbY

In america trips to the dr are very expensive, most people get that or at least a portion of that covered by health insurance. There is a push to have that not cover contraceptives, never mind abortion procedures, but there is no push to not cover Viagra.

There is a new laws being pushed saying that you can't have any medical coverage on your health insurance group scheme which is provided by your employer (even if you pay for part of it yourself), if your employee disproves of it.

IE if your employer is a company with christian ethics then you may not be able to use your health insurance for contraception, or if you do and you can't prove it's for a different medical reason you can be fired by the company.

http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills


The thing is with the christian colleges you must sign up to thier health group schemes as part of your agreement to attend college and if you don't they will kick you out. So you have to pay for two different policies.

krudler

jujibee wrote: »

She was looking for the birth control pill, not condoms. The university they go to is catholic so the university's insurance refuses to cover anything that can be used as birth control even if it is being prescribed for another purpose.

This whole thing kicked off because Obama is trying to make insurance companies be legally required to cover birth control even if the employer running the program wants to not have it covered due to moral/religious objections.

The irony is that Rush was caught trying to smuggle Viagra into another country when he was on holiday... and guess what the insurance problems have absolutely no problem paying for... Viagra.

Read the whole thing there earlier, I heard this mentioned on newstalk last week on George Hook and he had the same "gway n stop having so much sex" reaction. the viagra thing is laughable though, christian groups have no issue providing that but do with contraception. have all the sex you want just dont try stop yourself getting pregnant? oh america, you so crazy.

LittleBook

Aside from the charming Mr. Limbaugh, what do people think of the whole "contraception (birth control pills/devices) should be covered by standard health insurance policies" debate?

neuro-praxis

Love the Reformed Whores.

Limbaugh is a pretty disgusting man, and an excellent example of modern misogyny alive and kicking. However I would like to clarify that Limbaugh is not a Christian - whatever about claiming to be in favour of "christian values" (whatever those might be); he is a republican, and represents right wing conservatism, which is more about keeping taxes low for the rich, homophobia and war on a constant cycle than it is about Jesus. He's like Christopher Hitchens, only not as clever or engaging. Plenty of republicans are non-religious, and plenty of Christians vote democrat. 83% of Americans self-identify as Christian.

Sharrow wrote: »

IE if your employer is a company with christian ethics then you may not be able to use your health insurance for contraception, or if you do and you can't prove it's for a different medical reason you can be fired by the company.

http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills

What a ridiculous bill...but just to clarify. Firstly it's Catholic ethics that prevent the use of contraception, not Christian ethics. Evangelicals and protestants make up 46% of Americans and they are all in favour of using contraception.

Secondly you would be fired for defrauding the company policy, not for using contraception.

The thing is with the christian colleges you must sign up to thier health group schemes as part of your agreement to attend college and if you don't they will kick you out. So you have to pay for two different policies.

I would like to see some links on that claim if you have any (not challenging this, just interested). Also why would you need two different schemes? Surely one scheme would suffice, but where you pay your own contraceptive bill. I have friends who attended Christian colleges and I have never heard of the healthcare schemes being anything other than a very welcome safeguard against ill-health in university.

Also Christian colleges are not like Catholic schools in Ireland where you "get sent" for being born into a religion. They are private institutions and the students attending themselves are looking for faith-centred education, and are then sometimes expected to sign statements of faith and ascribe to codes of conduct. One of those codes of conduct would be chastity while unmarried; an orthodox Christian practice. You can even attend a single-sex college if you so desire. If a Christian college then committed to pay for contraception in its healthcare plan that would be pretty farcical (except of course in the case of medical need).

I use contraception myself and it is unclear to me why any health insurance policy should pay for it if is not medically required.

The bottom line is, Georgetown University is a Catholic college and it is not obliged by any law to provide contraception to its students under its healthcare plan. Fair play to Sandra Fluke for raising the issue but it is pretty naive to expect Catholic hierarchies to subsidise the costs that come with a sex life, no? And Limbaugh should be ashamed of himself. He is a disgrace to good men everywhere.

LittleBook

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I use contraception myself and it is unclear to me why any health insurance policy should pay for it if is not medically required.

Well, apart from the fact I can't think of a good reason why it shouldn't be covered, my position on this (which is always open to negotiation ) is based on a few different elements.

It seems to me that health insurance policies (and medical cards) in general cover prescribed medication but not contraception. Medical cards (and Medicaid in the US) cover the cost of contraception. The issue here is whether employee (or university) health insurance should cover it and I can't see why not.

For me, contraception falls under the remit of "women's health" in general. In fairness, it can be argued that contraception is not really part of a health insurance model but there's nowhere else really to put it as far as I can see. And there is a move towards preventative health care for people in general which I think covers contraception.

Medically speaking, "preventing unwanted pregnancies is only one goal of the new requirement. Contraception can help make a woman's next pregnancy healthier by spacing births far enough apart, generally 18 months to two years. Research links closely spaced births to a risk of such problems as prematurity, low birth weight, even autism."

Obama: Health Insurers Must Cover Birth Control With No Copays

Because of its contraceptive effects, the pill also leads to fewer ectopic pregnancies than in women not on the pill.

The pill decreases irregular menstrual bleeding and menstrual cramps, and can be used in conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome (POS) and endometriosis where bleeding control is important.

The pill is also associated with a lower risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (or PID)

The combination birth control pill lowers the risk of getting ovarian cancer by up to 50% ... the risk of uterine or endometrial cancer, too, by as much as 50% ... has also been found to decrease the chance of getting colon cancer.

http://chealth.canoe.ca/channel_section_details.asp?text_id=1592&channel_id=7&relation_id=25710

Health insurance covers maternity expenses (which are enormous) but not the cost of preventing pregnancy. This seems a tad self-defeating since the cost of accidental or unplanned pregnancies which they shell out for would surely be a lot more than the cost of contraception in general (total guess on my part).

Same for employee health insurance, surely it makes sense to encourage your staff to prevent pregnancy.

From a societal point of view, I think long-term contraception should be freely and easily available to all women over the age of 18 ... and at the cost of the state. I can only see how this would benefit both the women who want it and the state itself who is, in many cases, obliged to support the children of unplanned pregnancies.

My last (most personal POV reason) is that by covering the cost of contraception in health insurance, we are recognising that, as things stand, there is an unfair onus on women to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen (note Obama is insisting on no copays) since the consequences sit so squarely on the shoulders of the woman.

Sure we can talk about condoms but we know we can't rely on them so women are encouraged to use a secondary contraceptive method.

And it always seems (to me) that whenever the issue of contraception or "the state and single parents" is being discussed, the undertone still tends to be "the woman should keep her knees together" rather than "the man should keep his penis in his pants".

I've been thinking about this more since I read the article in the OP and I can't think of an area that wouldn't benefit ... maybe tht health insurance premiums would be a little higher (certainly the health insurance companies will make sure they don't lose out) but wouldn't the long-term benefit to everyone be greater?

Logical Fallacy

LittleBook wrote: »

And it always seems (to me) that whenever the issue of contraception or "the state and single parents" is being discussed, the undertone still tends to be "the woman should keep her knees together" rather than "the man should keep his penis in his pants".

It's because women are temptresses and men are dummies. Read the bible, it's all there.

In all seriousness, i wouldn't try and delve too deeply into the workings of Republican logic. It's a party that talks about small government as a workable concept while actually trying to legislate pretty much every aspect of people's lives. So much confusion!

neuro-praxis

Maybe a better place to start actually would be providing free tampons and sanitary towels, which no girl over the age of 13 can do without. Not all women want or need to be on the pill; paying a higher premium for the privilege across the board could be seen to be unfair.

(I speak as though I am in favour of health insurance: as a democratic socialist I am actually completely against privatised health care in all its forms.)

LittleBook I take your point, but I'm not sure it's fully honest to state that being on the pill is for the good of a woman's health. Most women wouldn't bother if they didn't have to. You seem to be making a case for all women going on the pill.

Perhaps you are completely right though and the state should shoulder the cost of all contraceptives. I need to think about it more.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is good, but I'm not actually sure that this would achieve that. There is no problem accessing contraception or sex education in Ireland and unwanted pregnancies still occur every day.

LittleBook

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

It's because women are temptresses and men are dummies. Read the bible, it's all there.

Not just the bible. In society in general (up until the 60s in the West, still today in other parts of the world) girls were expected to be the sex police and woe betide any girl who let down her guard!

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In all seriousness, i wouldn't try and delve too deeply into the workings of Republican logic. It's a party that talks about small government as a workable concept while actually trying to legislate pretty much every aspect of people's lives. So much confusion!

Agreed, so I want to move away from what Rush thinks towards what people think of the concept in general.

krudler

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Maybe a better place to start actually would be providing free tampons and sanitary towels, which no girl over the age of 13 can do without. Not all women want or need to be on the pill; paying a higher premium for the privilege across the board could be seen to be unfair.

(I speak as though I am in favour of health insurance: as a democratic socialist I am actually completely against privatised health care in all its forms.)

LittleBook I take your point, but I'm not sure it's fully honest to state that being on the pill is for the good of a woman's health. Most women wouldn't bother if they didn't have to. You seem to be making a case for all women going on the pill.

Perhaps you are completely right though and the state should shoulder the cost of all contraceptives. I need to think about it more.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is good, but I'm not actually sure that this would achieve that. There is no problem accessing contraception or sex education in Ireland and unwanted pregnancies still occur every day.

thats only in the last 20 years though, condoms were illegal here until 1991 or thereabouts, which is just insane. I wouldnt expect the state or my vhi to pay for my condoms (wouldnt object if they did though!) as they're not that expensive but I imagine for the pill its different (gp visit to get new prescription every few months then the cost of the tablets? correct me if I'm wrong)

Malari

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Maybe a better place to start actually would be providing free tampons and sanitary towels, which no girl over the age of 13 can do without. Not all women want or need to be on the pill; paying a higher premium for the privilege across the board could be seen to be unfair.

Good point. But not all women want to be pregnant either and maternity is covered on health insurance.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

I'm not sure it's fully honest to state that being on the pill is for the good of a woman's health. Most women wouldn't bother if they didn't have to. You seem to be making a case for all women going on the pill.

I don't know about most women wouldn't if they didn't have to...do you mean have to for contraceptive reasons? Or have to if they didn't menstruate like men? I and several of my friends were initially prescribed the pill for medical reasons - acne, ovarian cysts, heavy periods, etc - and contraception is just a side effect. I'd be reluctant to give up my pill for period management as much as contraception!

neuro-praxis

krudler wrote: »

thats only in the last 20 years though, condoms were illegal here until 1991 or thereabouts, which is just insane. I wouldnt expect the state or my vhi to pay for my condoms (wouldnt object if they did though!) as they're not that expensive but I imagine for the pill its different (gp visit to get new prescription every few months then the cost of the tablets? correct me if I'm wrong)

No you're right. A GP visit at least twice a year (€100) and then about €12.50 per month for the pill itself (€150). So, €250 a year, or 68 cents a day. Say there are 2 million sexually active women, that's a cost of €50 million per year to the state.

neuro-praxis

Malari wrote: »

I don't know about most women wouldn't if they didn't have to...do you mean have to for contraceptive reasons?

Yes.

Honey-ec

krudler wrote: »

thats only in the last 20 years though, condoms were illegal here until 1991 or thereabouts, which is just insane. I wouldnt expect the state or my vhi to pay for my condoms (wouldnt object if they did though!) as they're not that expensive but I imagine for the pill its different (gp visit to get new prescription every few months then the cost of the tablets? correct me if I'm wrong)

€50 for a consultation with my GP, €15 per pack for the pill itself. My GP is pretty sound about letting me renew my prescription without actually making me come in to see him, though.

Still, it's not a cost that I think should be covered by health insurance, other than the rebate they give on all prescription medicines. No-one is forcing me to be on the Pill, no more than anyone is forcing me to have sex. I've no issues with it being covered on the medical card, as pretty much all prescription drugs are.

Malari

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Yes.

Interesting. I guess I love having the pill for non-contraceptive reasons too. I can't imagine going back to not knowing when my period is due or knowing I can stop it if I need to, or that it will be light and painless. Maybe I'm unusual.

LittleBook

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Maybe a better place to start actually would be providing free tampons and sanitary towels, which no girl over the age of 13 can do without.

Good thinking! Up until recently, these "luxuries" were subject to VAT!

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Not all women want or need to be on the pill; paying a higher premium for the privilege across the board could be seen to be unfair.

(I speak as though I am in favour of health insurance: as a democratic socialist I am actually completely against privatised health care in all its forms.)

LittleBook I take your point, but I'm not sure it's fully honest to state that being on the pill is for the good of a woman's health. Most women wouldn't bother if they didn't have to. You seem to be making a case for all women going on the pill.

Perhaps you are completely right though and the state should shoulder the cost of all contraceptives. I need to think about it more.

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is good, but I'm not actually sure that this would achieve that. There is no problem accessing contraception or sex education in Ireland and unwanted pregnancies still occur every day.

There's a stream-of-consciousness element to my post.

The health aspects are bits and pieces I've picked up and processed over the years. I'm in no way suggesting that all women should go on the pill, just pointing out the preventative benefits of being on the pill.

Speaking of Ireland specifically, I just can't agree that there is no problem accessing contraception or sex education here. My daughter just had her first sex ed class in 5th year and it's not straightforward for a woman in her 20s or 30s who doesn't have 3 or 4 children to get access to long-term contraception. There's even a slut-shaming element to contraception that is illustrated in Bluewolf's link which I have no doubt would catch on here.

Even apart from the imbalance in cost between men and women for having baby-less sex, maybe I'm being idealistic but I can't believe that free contraception would not have an affect on unplanned pregnancies.

This is being mandated in the US and I don't see why not here. I get a real "everyone's a winner" feeling with this.

(Oh crap, I can't believe I'm arguing with neuro-praxis!)

LittleBook

neuro-praxis wrote: »

No you're right. A GP visit at least twice a year (€100) and then about €12.50 per month for the pill itself (€150). So, €250 a year, or 68 cents a day. Say there are 2 million sexually active women, that's a cost of €50 million per year to the state.

State and/or health insurance companies. I honestly don't know how much is paid out in terms of avoidable maternity costs or unplanned pregancies which the state ends up supporting (by both) but I suspect it's more.

neuro-praxis

LittleBook wrote: »

State and/or health insurance companies. I honestly don't know how much is paid out in terms of avoidable maternity costs or unplanned pregancies which the state ends up supporting (by both) but I suspect it's more.

I'm sure it is more.

But you're working on the assumption that the state/med insurance companies providing free contraception would end unplanned pregnancies. It wouldn't. It might reduce them, but by how much?

Most people who have unplanned pregnancies don't find themselves in that situation because they couldn't get their hands on contraception.

neuro-praxis

LittleBook wrote: »

Speaking of Ireland specifically, I just can't agree that there is no problem accessing contraception or sex education here. My daughter just had her first sex ed class in 5th year and it's not straightforward for a woman in her 20s or 30s who doesn't have 3 or 4 children to get access to long-term contraception.

What?! Why?! I'm 29 and childless and have no bother accessing long-term contraception.

(Oh crap, I can't believe I'm arguing with neuro-praxis!)

Silly billy. You're changing my mind on this issue! :pac:

Honey-ec

LittleBook wrote: »

State and/or health insurance companies. I honestly don't know how much is paid out in terms of avoidable maternity costs or unplanned pregancies which the state ends up supporting (by both) but I suspect it's more.

It's in the State's interest to pay maternity benefit though, because they need to keep the population at replacement level. Maternity costs aren't generally seen as a drain on a state's finances because they'll ultimately be recovered several times over in taxes over the lifetime of that person.

Honey-ec

LittleBook wrote: »

Speaking of Ireland specifically, I just can't agree that there is no problem accessing contraception or sex education here. My daughter just had her first sex ed class in 5th year and it's not straightforward for a woman in her 20s or 30s who doesn't have 3 or 4 children to get access to long-term contraception. There's even a slut-shaming element to contraception that is illustrated in Bluewolf's link which I have no doubt would catch on here.:)

I'd have had words with your daughter's school long ago, in that case. I had my first sex-ed session in 6th class, and that was 18 years ago.

I have to take issue with the rest of your post too, btw. By long-term you seem to mean tubal ligation, which can certainly be difficult for child-free women to access in Ireland. However, there is absolutely no issue with accessing other long-term methods such as IUDs and implants. And I have never, ever come across an element of slut-shaming while accessing contraception in any form in this country, and I've been sexually active since I was 16.

LittleBook

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Silly billy. You're changing my mind on this issue! :pac:

[Rubs hands together] Ok, here goes

Because it was a bit all over the place I'm going to take my long post and break it down into pros:

Prescription medicine is covered by health insurance policies to a certain extent and completely by Medical Cards/Medicaid. The pill should be too.

Preventative health benefits which really for me are icing on the argument

From an employer's and health insurance point of view, preventing pregnancies which will cost them more in terms of time and money.

Benefits to society in terms of reducing cost of unplanned pregnancy which the state ends up paying for. "By how much?" you ask, fair question, I've no idea.

Lastly (but most important to me) is my "it's just not fair" reason ... there is an unfair onus on women to ensure that unplanned pregnancies don't happen, let's give them a helping hand.

I'm open to cons ... I agree that the (probably very small) extra on global premiums could be viewed as unfair on people who will never use the pill but in reality we're paying for other people's medical treatment all the time. People's insurance policy covers maternity benefits which could be viewed as unfair to those who don't plan to have children ... people pay taxes to support other people's children, which is unfair.

Honey-ec wrote: »

By long-term you seem to mean tubal ligation, which can certainly be difficult for child-free women to access in Ireland.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

What?! Why?! I'm 29 and childless and have no bother accessing long-term contraception.

No sorry, you're both right ... I said "long-term" I meant "permanent". No problem for a vasectomy but tubal ligations are extremely difficult to obtain.

But I just remembered reading somewhere that doctors in Ireland can refuse to prescribe the MAP (or the pill?) if it's against their beliefs ... have to check that out.

Honey-ec wrote: »

I'd have had words with your daughter's school long ago, in that case. I had my first sex-ed session in 6th class, and that was 18 years ago.

I never relied on the school for my daughter's sex ed so it wasn't an issue.

Honey-ec

LittleBook wrote: »

But I just remembered reading somewhere that doctors in Ireland can refuse to prescribe the MAP (or the pill?) if it's against their beliefs ... have to check that out.

They can, absolutely, but it's available over-the-counter without a prescription now so that's a moot point anyway.

I can see where you're coming from on the prescription contraceptive = prescription medicine, but the fact of the matter is that in the majority of cases, it's an elective medicine and that's why there will always be resistance to it being covered under insurance, etc. Are you sure it's not covered by the medical card, btw?

krudler

robbed from YLYL as it suits this thread perfectly:

Atlantis50

For some balance on the issue:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ISKQD7ytSk

krudler

Atlantis50 wrote: »

For some balance on the issue:

how is that balance? Maher is a comedian who attacks anyone stupid, Sarah Palin is a monumentally stupid person.

Atlantis50

krudler wrote: »

how is that balance? Maher is a comedian who attacks anyone stupid, Sarah Palin is a monumentally stupid person.

He's involved himself in the politics by giving $1 million to Obama.

Obama has spoken out against Limbaugh for calling Fluke a 'slut' yet he accepts $1 million from this guy.

krudler

Atlantis50 wrote: »

He's involved himself in the politics by giving $1 million to Obama.

Obama has spoken out against Limbaugh for calling Fluke a 'slut' yet he accepts $1 million from this guy.

but whats one got to do with the other?

Atlantis50

krudler wrote: »

but whats one got to do with the other?

Hypocrisy perhaps.

FouxDaFaFa

Limbaugh just joined Twitter, in one of the most monumentally stupid PR moves in recent memory. He could not have picked a worse time to open himself up to the wrath of the twitter community.

It's just ludicrous that this guy would say something like "oh you're having so much sex you can't afford the pill" when it was only 6 years ago he was detained by police for carrying viagra pills under someone else's name on his way back from the Dominican Republic. Guess he's having so much sex he needs to keep a supply on him at all times, right? It just staggers me the audience he gets.

Re: the Maher thing. It's a weak argument. The two aren't comparable. I don't particularly like Maher (in the sense that I'd have him over for dinner), but he makes sense in his own very blunt way. He goes after people in the public eye. Rush viciously attacked a girl who is not a politician, not media-trained, not a "player". She's a civilian. It was completely over the top and offensive.

krudler

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Limbaugh just joined Twitter, in one of the most monumentally stupid PR moves in recent memory. He could not have picked a worse time to open himself up to the wrath of the twitter community.

It's just ludicrous that this guy would say something like "oh you're having so much sex you can't afford the pill" when it was only 6 years ago he was detained by police for carrying viagra pills under someone else's name on his way back from the Dominican Republic. Guess he's having so much sex he needs to keep a supply on him at all times, right? It just staggers me the audience he gets.

Re: the Maher thing. It's a weak argument. The two aren't comparable. I don't particularly like Maher (in the sense that I'd have him over for dinner), but he makes sense in his own very blunt way. He goes after people in the public eye. Rush viciously attacked a girl who is not a politician, not media-trained, not a "player". She's a civilian. It was completely over the top and offensive.

I dont always agree with Maher either, but he's a comedian making fun of celebrities, its what he does, and with good cause the majority of the time. one has nothing to do with the other. about the Obama donation thing, its for his re-election campaign is it not? look at the other possiblities running for US president, right wing lunatics most of them like Rick Santorum, better the devil you know and all that.

Giselle

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Rush viciously attacked a girl who is not a politician, not media-trained, not a "player". She's a civilian. It was completely over the top and offensive.

Personally I'm delighted at all this controversy.

He's an idiot who's had one effect on voting in the States - He's sending would-be Republican women voters away in their droves.

He's shot the whole Republican Party in the foot by forgetting that women vote too. He's now a major liability to the Republican cause and thats something the whole world can be grateful for.

sam34

LittleBook wrote: »

I said "long-term" I meant "permanent". No problem for a vasectomy but tubal ligations are extremely difficult to obtain.

But I just remembered reading somewhere that doctors in Ireland can refuse to prescribe the MAP (or the pill?) if it's against their beliefs

it's over simplyfying things to say it's "no problem" get a vasectomy.

vasectomies are available through many GP surgeries, certainly, whereas tubal ligation is not, but that's due to the relative complexities of each procedure. you can pop out at lunch to get a vasectomy and be back at work in the afternoon, TL is a much bigger, much more complicated operation.

but, just as it's not easy for a single childfree woman to obtain a TL, neither is it easy or straightforward for a single childfree man to obtain a vasectomy. it's considered permanent sterilisation (altho there is some small success in reversing them), hence the reluctance in performing either in someone young who is childfree. occasionally, threads pop up in TGC about how childfree men have no other options available to them other than condoms whereas woman have many means of longterm contraception available to them.


re refusing to prescribe the morning after pill, well, yeah. it's a controversial drug, in the whole community , not just among doctors , for religious reasons largely. some people, incl some doctors, believe it to be an abortifacient, and believe abortion to be wrong, because of their religious beliefs. those doctors are entitled to those beliefs and entitled to practice those beliefs, incl at work. they cannot be forced to act against their religious beliefs. however, what they are obliged ethically to do is refer the patient to a colleague who will prescribe it, they shouldn't just turn away a patient without giving them that info.

LittleBook

sam34 wrote: »

it's over simplyfying things to say it's "no problem" get a vasectomy.

vasectomies are available through many GP surgeries, certainly, whereas tubal ligation is not, but that's due to the relative complexities of each procedure. you can pop out at lunch to get a vasectomy and be back at work in the afternoon, TL is a much bigger, much more complicated operation.

but, just as it's not easy for a single childfree woman to obtain a TL, neither is it easy or straightforward for a single childfree man to obtain a vasectomy. it's considered permanent sterilisation (altho there is some small success in reversing them), hence the reluctance in performing either in someone young who is childfree. occasionally, threads pop up in TGC about how childfree men have no other options available to them other than condoms whereas woman have many means of longterm contraception available to them.

re refusing to prescribe the morning after pill, well, yeah. it's a controversial drug, in the whole community , not just among doctors , for religious reasons largely. some people, incl some doctors, believe it to be an abortifacient, and believe abortion to be wrong, because of their religious beliefs. those doctors are entitled to those beliefs and entitled to practice those beliefs, incl at work. they cannot be forced to act against their religious beliefs. however, what they are obliged ethically to do is refer the patient to a colleague who will prescribe it, they shouldn't just turn away a patient without giving them that info.

Hmm, my impression (albeit based on anecdotal evidence) is that it's very difficult outside of certain circumstances to get a TL while there are several walk-in vasectomy clinics in Ireland even aside from the obvious difference in the procedures ... I'm older (I think) than most people here so I'll bow to your more current knowledge.

But I can't agree that it's OK for religious beliefs to interfere with a doctor's work. I guess I believe that everyone is entitled to any procedure they want/need with the impartial support of their doctor. There was a discussion here some time ago about a woman who had to travel from Kerry to Cork to get the MAP because her doctor refused to prescribe it and she couldn't find anyone nearer for some reason.

As Honey said, it's over-the-counter now thankfully but bringing religion into medicine grinds my gears and, I suspect, shapes a lot of medical thinking in Ireland.

But that's another debate entirely.

Honey-ec wrote: »

I'd have had words with your daughter's school long ago, in that case. I had my first sex-ed session in 6th class, and that was 18 years ago.

You got me thinking so I checked with my daughter last night, she did primary school in France so it was possible we missed a class somewhere. She said that her friends had had a "birds and bees" type of sex ed in 6th class which basically just covered where babies came from. Her religion teacher in 5th year was tasked with instructing them on the rest, hilarity ensued.

But ok, maybe things have changed for the better, maybe sex education in Ireland is generally very good elsewhere in Ireland ... again another discussion.

Honey-ec wrote: »

I can see where you're coming from on the prescription contraceptive = prescription medicine, but the fact of the matter is that in the majority of cases, it's an elective medicine and that's why there will always be resistance to it being covered under insurance, etc. Are you sure it's not covered by the medical card, btw?

Well, apart from the possibility that it could be actually required rather than elective, I think there are other elective medications/procedures that are covered by health insurance. Didn't someone mention earlier that Viagra was covered? I think vasectomies and TLs are covered by a lot of policies.

And contraception is covered by the medical card.

Kooli

With all this stuff about contraception, and then the issue in Texas with it's 'state-sponsored rape' and forcing women to have unnecessary ultrasounds before an abortion (check out the Doonesbury cartoon if you haven't seen it), there is something seriously weird going on in America at the moment with regard to the rights of women. Some are calling it the GOP's War on Women, and while that is hyperbolic, it doesn't seem that crazy.

Hillary Clinton said last week in a speech:

"Why extremists always focus on women remains a mystery to me. But they all seem to. It doesn‘t matter what country they’re in or what religion they claim. They all want to control women. They want to control how we dress. They want to control how we act. They even want to control the decisions we make about our own health and our own bodies.”

I think it's a powerful point to compare the Republican agenda in US to more extremist religious powers in other parts of the world.

fatmammycat

http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know

This is what Texas is doing to women, poor stupid women who need to be told what they're doing in graphic detail because they are too dumb to know what abortion is. Sickening.

eviltwin

Ultrasounds are common in the UK abortion clinics in fact I think every woman will get one. You are not obliged to see the scan or hear any description of it, its more for the doctors, but a physical copy of the scan is kept on file. A lot of women actually take that scan with them or get it later on, might seem odd but for many it can be very healing. I have my scan picture of my baby, the only picture of her I will ever have and its the most precious thing I own. For me that fact I was able to get it was not cruel at all, it was actually a big step forward for me on the way to healing.

Honey-ec

eviltwin wrote: »

Ultrasounds are common in the UK abortion clinics in fact I think every woman will get one.

Transvaginal ultrasounds?

eviltwin

Honey-ec wrote: »

Transvaginal ultrasounds?

No the more traditional one...tbh though I think I would have preferred a transvaginal one. Sitting on a bed having the gel put on my stomach and having the device rubbed over me was too much like the happy scenes I had in my head of what having a baby should be like.

Agree it cruel and pointless to expect women to sit through a description of what is going to happen.

meganj

eviltwin wrote: »

Ultrasounds are common in the UK abortion clinics in fact I think every woman will get one. You are not obliged to see the scan or hear any description of it, its more for the doctors, but a physical copy of the scan is kept on file. A lot of women actually take that scan with them or get it later on, might seem odd but for many it can be very healing. I have my scan picture of my baby, the only picture of her I will ever have and its the most precious thing I own. For me that fact I was able to get it was not cruel at all, it was actually a big step forward for me on the way to healing.

Difference is the recent legislation in a lot of the states in America means you have to have the ultrasound. The case in Texas to me is extemely worrying, women are being forced to have vaginal ultrasounds in order to have an abortion (which is legal in the US). This essentially means that a doctor can put a (as Doonesbury put it) 'Shaming wand' inside you, even if you ask him not too. It's tantamount to rape and I say that not to be hysterical or to minimise suffering of those who have been raped but it is.

In addition to this the attitude of some (although unnamed) GOP lawmakers in Virginia regarding their own attempts to bring in vaginal ultrasounds, when challenged on the issue of consent to be penetrated for a vaginal ultrasound, they said a woman who was seeking an abortion had already to consented to penetration when she had sex.

I think the term 'War on Women' is a bit hyperbolic, but I would also question why when America is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, facing issues with Israel and Iran not to mention their domestic issues are the GOP so focused on what a woman does with her body?

On Sandra Fluke I think that the biggest issue for me is that she was denied the right to speak at an ALL MALE GOP committee. Why is there an ALL MALE committee deciding what women can and can't do with their bodies?? By all means be involved, but at the very least there needs to be some semblance of balance.