Posts Tagged ‘health insurance’

If Sandra Fluke is a prostitute

Maybe it’s not the most current news, but as always, I need more hours in a day. There are a lot of things I have been wanting to blog about lately. I’ve probably written at least a dozen different posts in my head over the past several weeks. This is one of them.

For those who have been living under a rock, on February 23rd Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, testified at an unofficial Congressional hearing (because she was “unqualified” to testify at the official one) about the importance of contraception coverage. A few days later, Rush Limbaugh called her a slut and a prostitute because she wanted other people to pay for her to have sex.

There have been several retorts to that comment (among the many other vile things Limbaugh said). I suggest, at the very least, watching some of Jon Stewart’s and Stephen Colbert’s responses.

Like Jon Stewart, I don’t particularly care about what Limbaugh says. He’s a creep. I don’t listen to him, watch him, or pay attention to him in any sense. What nauseates me is the fact that I’ve heard people defending and agreeing with his comments.

The connection is that because Sandra Fluke believes contraception should be covered by her insurance that she is getting paid (in birth control) to have sex. We’ll put aside the fact that hormonal contraception is used for more than just birth control. We’ll also put aside the fact that you could have sex every other month or 15 times a day and how often you use hormonal contraceptives remains the same. We’ll put aside the fact that Ms. Fluke wasn’t suggesting that tax payers pay for it, but that her insurance covers and pays for it. And we’ll put aside the fact that in order for a woman to use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy, a man has to be involved – he has a penis, so he can’t be a slut or a prostitute.

We’ll put all of those things aside for this – If you have health insurance through your school or your job and you get lung cancer and your insurance covers your chemotherapy, does that mean you are getting paid to smoke? If you have high cholesterol because you’ve eaten too many McDonald’s cheeseburgers and your insurance company covers your medication, are you being paid to eat? If you get into a car accident and your insurance covers your recovery, are you being paid to drive?

Nobody is forcing you to smoke or eat cheeseburgers or drive a car. Why are you entitled to have the results of those things covered by your insurance? Could it possibly be because they’re all a part of basic health care and by working wherever it is that you work or going to school wherever it is you are going to school, you are earning that health care? Yeah, contraception isn’t different. Well, except that people with penises don’t need it.

*****

I was honored this past week to have participated in this video project.

There’s a problem with free family planning?

Is it just me? Am I missing something? I cannot, for the life of me, understand where the problem is here. They’re proposing free family planning and contraceptives and people are against this?

My mouth hung open as I read this article in The New York Times online. I am all about respecting people’s religious views and I fully believe that everyone is entitled to their beliefs and opinions, but this is about trying to deny services that could greatly benefit the lives of women, children, and entire families.

I can’t speak for statistics, and I can’t quote specific case studies. What I can do is comment on what I see every day just by walking out my door. I used to work in retail. I can’t even tell you how many parents came in with Access cards (welfare cards) after unwanted pregnancies. I overheard a pregnant women talking to her friend not that long ago about how she “didn’t want this kid to begin with, but the insurance wouldn’t pay for an IUD”. It’s mentioned in the article that about half of all pregnancies were not planned. That number truly does not surprise me.

I certainly don’t take away from personal responsibility, and yes a lot of these women still could have prevented their unwanted pregnancies. But who is really suffering here? The innocent kids who had no say in being born. You add more children to a family that couldn’t even afford birth control and what do you think is going to happen? The health of each child is going to suffer.

And let’s not forget how much money will actually be saved in the long run. For the insurance company, compare the cost of contraceptives to the cost of prenatal care and childbirth. For the average taxpayer, compare the cost of contraceptives to the cost of more kids raised on welfare. Who is losing in this? Where the hell is the problem?

I read the religious arguments. I just don’t understand them. It “could violate the ‘rights of conscience’ of religious employers”? Really? What about the women who are physically unable to carry out a pregnancy? Their lives could be saved by free contraceptives. Where is the conscience in denying that?

All I can see are the positives to individual families, to society in general, to the taxpayers’ pockets, and to the health of women and children. Forgive me for not understanding the cons.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 652 other followers