Here is a summation of the events leading up to this (for those of you living under a rock):
- Legislation sent down that employers have to cover cost of preventative care for their employees.
- Religious organizations cry out that forcing them to pay for contraception for their female employees directly opposes their religious belief so they should be exempt (this, by the way, extends from their employees to the student body of religious universities).
- Debates ensue
- On Feb 14th, during an official Congressional hearing held on the subject, Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, is denied the ability to testify by Darrell Issa (R) because he claimed she was "unqualified" and the issue was not about women's health so much as religious liberty. Two female representatives walked out in protest of the all male panel and the fact that no women were allowed to testify. *According to New York Daily News (NYDailyNews.com)
- Fluke is eventually allowed to speak at an unofficial Democratic hearing where she points out the cost of contraception for students could be in excess of $3000/yr which would constitute nearly the entire salary of a student on financial aid.
- Rush Limbaugh opens his fat mouth and calls Fluke a "slut" and a "prostitute" who "wants to be paid to have sex" and is "having so much sex she can't afford the contraception and she wants you, and me, and the taxpayers to pay for her to have sex". He then goes on the following day to say: "If we're going to have to pay for this, then we want something in return, Ms. Fluke, and that would be the videos of all this sex posted online so we can see what we are getting for our money."
Can you guess the point during all that where my head exploded? Where the combination of audacity and a blatant lack of logical though caused my eyes to bleed?
First of all: ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?! You want porn, you sick on of a bitch, you get on the internet and download it yourself like the rest of us!!!
Ok, now that's out of the way..... The very first question that came to my mind when my friend called and told me all of this was going on was "At what point does the amount of sex a woman is having begin to influence the cost of her birth control pills?" Unless you take a pill every time you bump uglies, the amount of sex you're having is completely irrelevant. I don't care if she's bedding 3 guys a month or 3000, she still takes one pill a day. Period.
In addition, unless my understanding is incorrect (which it may very well be), the cost of preventative coverage would come from the employer. That means it would NOT be you, me, the taxpayers, etc. paying for it, but a private corporate entity so his demand for videos of "all this sex" to be posted on the web really is a thinly veiled attempt at attaining free porn. Points for ingenuity, but major deductions for "ick" factor.
In addition, unless my understanding is incorrect (which it may very well be), the cost of preventative coverage would come from the employer. That means it would NOT be you, me, the taxpayers, etc. paying for it, but a private corporate entity so his demand for videos of "all this sex" to be posted on the web really is a thinly veiled attempt at attaining free porn. Points for ingenuity, but major deductions for "ick" factor.
At this point, I honestly feel that the only way to respond to this and all the other instances where men and politicians in general feel they have the right to step in and spew forth their opinions on women's health issues is this:
(In case you don't want to clicky-click the link above)
Bill modeled after similar legislation to help women make informed decisions
(Columbus) -State Senator Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) announced legislation today that would protect men in Ohio from the risks of PDE-5 inhibitors, drugs commonly used to treat symptoms of impotence. Turner's legislation would include provisions to document that the symptoms are not psychological in nature, and would guide men to make the right decision for their bodies. Physicians would be required to obtain a second opinion from a psychological professional to verify that a patient has a true medical malady before the medication could be prescribed.
"The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues--the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs."
The legislation follows the FDA's recommendation that the evaluation of erectile dysfunction should include a determination of potential underlying causes and the identification of appropriate treatment following a complete medical assessment. Similar bills to more closely regulate reproductive health issues have been introduced in the state legislatures of Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, and most recently Pennsylvania.
(Columbus) -State Senator Nina Turner (D-Cleveland) announced legislation today that would protect men in Ohio from the risks of PDE-5 inhibitors, drugs commonly used to treat symptoms of impotence. Turner's legislation would include provisions to document that the symptoms are not psychological in nature, and would guide men to make the right decision for their bodies. Physicians would be required to obtain a second opinion from a psychological professional to verify that a patient has a true medical malady before the medication could be prescribed."The men in our lives, including members of the General Assembly, generously devote time to fundamental female reproductive issues--the least we can do is return the favor," Senator Turner said. "It is crucial that we take the appropriate steps to shelter vulnerable men from the potential side effects of these drugs."
The legislation follows the FDA's recommendation that the evaluation of erectile dysfunction should include a determination of potential underlying causes and the identification of appropriate treatment following a complete medical assessment. Similar bills to more closely regulate reproductive health issues have been introduced in the state legislatures of Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, and most recently Pennsylvania.
"When a man makes a crucial decision about his health and his body, he should be fully aware of the alternative options and the lifetime repercussions of that decision," Senator Turner said today. Men will be more easily guided through the process of obtaining treatment for impotence so they can better understand and more effectively address their condition.
PDE-5 inhibitors can carry serious side effects such as priapism, hearing loss, and vision loss, and can be detrimental to men with heart problems, including heart pain, abnormal heart rhythms, high or low blood pressure, or a history of stroke.
"By implementing more intensive screenings before prescribing the medication and requiring outpatient educational services, we can do more to prevent the potential side effects linked to PDE-5 inhibitors," Senator Turner explained. "We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation, and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options--including celibacy as a viable life choice. This legislation will do just that."
"By implementing more intensive screenings before prescribing the medication and requiring outpatient educational services, we can do more to prevent the potential side effects linked to PDE-5 inhibitors," Senator Turner explained. "We must advocate for the traditional family, protect the sanctity of procreation, and ensure that all men using PDE-5 inhibitors are healthy, stable, and educated about their options--including celibacy as a viable life choice. This legislation will do just that."
