How Congress is quietly trying to keep millions of women from getting birth control
Politicians who propose Title X funding will probably never meet the woman who loses access to birth control because of it. But they will change her life.
"Half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and for these patients, seeking birth control and reproductive health services through this program is a last resort, and can literally be lifesaving. That we would deny them essential care is unfathomable, but even more so because the American way of life holds family sacred. There is no sanctity in forcing a woman, who wants to be responsible for her sexuality, to live in fear of unexpected pregnancy."
The real target here is Planned Parenthood which because it provides abortion services has been under near constant attack. By eliminating this federal program, though, Republicans threaten to cut funding for 4,200 health centers across the country, including public health departments, which see 27% of patients. These departments actually receive the most Title X funding — not Planned Parenthood. This is complete insanity.
West Kagle says
I still don't understand when it became other peoples problems to provide you with birth control?!?
……you want to fuck…….go buy a god dam condom. No one has a right to either sex or birth control. Please stop trying to insist that commodities are rights.
No one is loosing access to birth control. Last time I looked, Walgreens has a huge supply of condoms (and abstinence is free). People need to learn to control yourselves.
+West Kagle there are no words to display how I strongly disagree with the foolish nonsense in your comment ……. so I'm gonna leave it alone and walk away.
West Kagle says
……..just walking away would mean, oh I don't know……just walking away. You know, not commenting. If you have something to say, or feel I'm wrong, by all means say it. I'm not above changing my view. However I think your lack of a substantial response is that you have no argument.
Tell me how it is that someone else should pay for your birth control. Tell me how a person has a right to sex? Tell me how Title X funding will deny anyone access to a drug store to buy condoms?
Make an intelligent and factual argument against what I've said and you may change my mind. Otherwise you might as well have actually 'walked away'.
Thomas Wrobel says
Planned Parenthood also, percentage wise, hardly does abortions.
(just 3%). The way republicans talk about it and what it actually does are pretty far apart.
That said, shouldn't this stuff be covered by ACA? Would be more simple if that was the case surely 😕 (rather then having planned parenthood as a "patch").
+West Kagle Birth control options for woman are far more complex then men and many of them need a doctor to advise or even fit them. Its not just simply a cost issue – its advice, skill and knowledge. (and in some cases a prescription)
West Kagle says
The means of birth control are the same. A condom, is a condom, is a condom.
What you're talking about is demanding a particular type of birth control. Condoms are just as affective when a woman gives one to her partner, as when a man has it himself. Plus the two methods I mentioned (condoms and abstinence) are not only the cheapest (and most accessible to everyone), they are also the most reliable (and prevent STDs including AIDS, which the pill, IUD and patch do not).
All in all, a good attempt, but I'm not moved from my first comment.
Paul Spoerry says
+West Kagle Condoms are not the most reliable form of birth control. The birth control pill is TWICE as effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy. ( http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/UnintendedPregnancy/PDF/Contraceptive_methods_508.pdf).
Abstinence is unnatural and scientifically bogus:
* Research evaluating abstinence-only sex education have concluded that it is ineffective at preventing unwanted pregnancy or the spread of STIs. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence-only_sex_education#Effectiveness)
* The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, "[s]cientific evidence simply does not support an abstinence-only-until-marriage approach." (http://www.siecus.org/_data/global/images/research_says.pdf)
The Contraceptive CHOICE Project contains materials that describe the study design and methodology of the CHOICE Project, key research findings about contraceptive use, continuation, and satisfaction, and implications supporting adoption of the CHOICE model of contraceptive care. They studied not only what was the most successful type of contraceptive but also the one most likely to be used. You can view all the results here: http://www.larcfirst.com/choiceresults.html.
Additionally, the "pill" is not exclusively used to prevent pregnancy. There is a HUGE range of applications beyond just use as a contraceptive: Lower cancer risk, Clearer skin, less painful periods, decreased PMS symptoms, endometriosis relief, polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief, etc. My younger sister suffered crippling endometriosis; to the point she had to have a hysterectomy recently. Previous to that the pill was the primary way to combat that.
You can control cholesterol via your diet, working out, etc. but I never hear anyone complaining that THOSE medications are covered by health insurance. I fail to see the difference. It's a medical issue… it should be covered by health insurance.
+West Kagle sigh you're troublesome. I can't stand humans.
First of all, the means of contraception are absolutely NOT the same , they each have their own method of use and effectiveness, condoms, like your suggesting, are the lowest in preventing unwanted pregnancy. Like most ridiculously modern couples, most would prefer the "3 guardians" or four, that would be condoms, spermicide, and birth control tablets. Though you're right about one thing, condoms are protective of aids and other STDs, whereas pills etc.are not. But condoms are only 95% effective when used correctly, where's pills contraceptives are OVER 99% effective, imagine the effectiveness combined. I'm not one to tell a person they're wrong, unless they really are, only that I disagree. And I feel you do not see the situation as a whole. Contraceptive pills are not only to prevent PREGNANCY, but also to prevent HORMONAL IMBALANCE; another note: you, personally or otherwise, do NOT pay for the medical coverage of birth control pills via taxes or any other method, the woman to whom they are prescribed to pay for them out of pocket or with their own insurance. I myself take prescription contraceptive pills for my menstrual irregularity. If I haven't been prescribed the pills,I would have remained fatally anemic. Now please, drop this matter for it seems you're a bystander that only sees a fraction of the whole situation.
Jeez. I was willing to drop it so you'd take the liberty upon yourself to look further in the matter, sigh.
+West Kagle and another thing since you have me going.
What is this absurd ideology of yours? Sex is not a RIGHT? Sex is a sign of lack of control? Sex is a commodity? Abstinence is a must? What creatures in this earth don't have sex? To procreate or otherwise? Sex is a birth right, "God given" even if anything, man doesn't need to make a law to say "sex is immoral and illegal until you have a permit" sex is one of the most natural occurrences in any, and I mean ANY, species in this planet, it's a bare and primitive instinct that no one, especially not a single lifeform such as yourself, can say is wrong, weak willed, or immoral. Now I understand that with those who take to much joy in the act to the point they actually harm themselves and others, that does not justify your words, the entire human race isn't like that. You say no one has a right to sex. HOW? explain how you, a single person, has the right, no the gall, to deny an entire race of reproduction.
West Kagle says
First let me say, sorry if I ranted and cussed before. I usually rant with out the cussing. This stuff makes me nuts.
If the Pill is being used as something other than birth control, it should be prescribed as such and there for subject to inclusion in a prescription plan in a standard health insurance policy.
As far as effectiveness. It's well known that if used correctly a condom is extremely effective (and self control, AKA abstinence, is 100% effective, and if you can't control yourself, take it out back and…..well you know). Plus nothing you can link to can disprove the fact that the other methods will not stop the transmission of STDs like HIV (with perhaps the exception of the diaphragm if used with an agent like nonoxynol-9, although that won't help with tears in the vaginal wall).
However this all deviates from the crux of the topic. I still haven't heard anything that makes me believe that anyone has the right to birth control (with the intent that it be used as such). If you need the birth control for something other than the prevention of pregnancy, that's an entirely different story. (and please tell me you accidently put 'clear skin' on your list. We now consider the vanity of clear skin to be a right?), but to say I have a right to the birth control I want so I can get my nasty on, is absurd (BTW I still haven't heard the argument supporting a persons right to sex. Sounds a little like the argument a rapist would make).
If we start declaring commodities to be rights, where do you propose we draw the line?
You've make me think hard about many different things (and even altered a few of them here and there), but I'm still no where moved this time.
West Kagle says
I still don't see anywhere in your argument how a person has the right to birth control. It's a commodity, and as such, it requires money to get. Rights, like the things listed in the Bill of RIGHTS, don't need to be purchased.
Needing birth control for things other than birth control is a different case, and as I said above, should be covered under the prescription part of a health insurance plan. So that argument doesn't fly.
I also asked to be shown where a person has the right to sex. As I said in the response above, saying you have the right to sex sounds like an argument from a rapist.
West Kagle says
Why are you putting things in quotes, as if I said those words???
I never said 'sex is immoral and illegal until you have a permit'.
Please DON'T put words in my mouth.
BTW……..I don't know if it's because you're upset, or angry, or whatever, but when you're in that state, you should re-read what you've typed before you post it. You have some good things to say, but it's all messed up and babbling. Take it from a moron who would sound far more stupid than he already does if it were not for the ability to proof-rear and edit what he writes before anyone gets to read it.
dear user, i never put words in your mouth specifically, did I? if you had read carefully you would have seen "man doesn't need to make a law saying "sex is immoral and illegal until you have a permit" "
Birth control may be a commodity, but so are condoms, immunizations, vaccines, books, food, gas. there are things that at some point needs to be purchased, it's not a right. Birth Control, like any other medication, needs money , from the client to purchase it, to the scientist who researches it. People have a right to birth control not only for medical purposes but to ASSIST in preventing pregnancies most people are not ready for, or even want..
Are you implying that I am a rapist? Because that will upset, if that is what you are trying to do. And do please excuse my sloppiness, I was in the middle of dinner preparation at that time and was trying to pull two actions at once. As I already said, sex does not need to be a right as you keep babbling about, it's a natural occurrence no matter what sort of light you try to shine on it. Abstinence is an abomination of mankind as are many other things, for a species to deny it's own nature, it's madness. not to mention it fails on more occasions than it does succeed.
Indeed, You continue to prattle on and on about "How is sex a right ?" well how is not, is right to be arrested to make love to my wife/husband with contraceptives, merely because i want him/her to feel good, but we're not ready for childhood? Is it right to scorn and shame someone for enjoying sex but not have the mental capability to raise a family? I gave my opinion, now I want to read yours: How is sex not a NATURAL HUMAN right?
i swear this user and i could be really close friends, i have these types of arguments all the time with some of the most important people in my life.
West Kagle says
We aren't as far apart as you may think. I have seen you +1 my comments before. We are just not going to agree here. Like the fact that I don't think it's outmoded to have sex only when I'm in a committed relationship (it doesn't need to be marriage, but I do need to see myself with that person for the rest of my life). As well as if I can't afford to buy my birth control, maybe I shouldn't be having sex and risking not being able to afford to support a family.
I don't choose to not have sex based on religious grounds (I am a Shintoist, and there for 'god' doesn't have sway over me). The choice to have or not to have sex is based on the idea that it is the most personal and spiritual connection two people can share, and not to be entered into lightly.
….and no, I'm not calling you a rapist. I'm saying that the notion that sex is a right is like saying, I can't get someone to have sex with me, and since I have a right to it, I'm going to take it. No one is entitled to sex just because they have human DNA that needs to be passed on. Making a law that restricts or takes away your right to have sex is ridiculous, and could only come to light in an Orwellian future, but it's equally silly to think that everyone is entitled to it.
+West Kagle hmm? I have? I don't recognize your account name..? Hm but i suppose you make a valid statement. We'll leave at that, agreed?
West Kagle says
If I could remember the comment I was thinking of that you +1 I'd link it, but I do remember you doing it because you have a memorable face (plus the fact that your screen name is in Asian characters).
I think it was on another one of Paul's postings. I often come here to hear what he has to say. If I didn't, all I would hear is stuff from the right wing and I'd be living in an echo chamber. That helps no one.
+West Kagle right, he is the primary source before the secondary of whats going on
Paul Spoerry says
OK +狼村谷社 and +West Kagle you guys are adorable and make me love G+. That was a cool thing to wake up and read a thread deescalate into a "eh I don't agree but you're alright, it's cool" sort of thing.
I don't think STD prevention was really the topic here, though it's something everyone should consider. I just had an STD test despite being in a 5 year monogamous relationship. Why? Because I think it's just good health practice and because I can tell my kid I get them. We also have a condom sitting on the edge of my whiteboard… because health class happened and they covered the very basics. I asked if they talked about condoms or went in depth and he said no. So we got some, put them out, I took one out and showed him how they unroll and did the funny blow it up like a balloon thing, etc. Why? Because I want him to have early memories of that. I want him to have early memories of safe sex being something we can and should talk about. So on the STD front… condoms condoms condoms!
+West Kagle "I don't choose to not have sex based on religious grounds (I am a Shintoist…, and there for 'god' doesn't have sway over me). "…. you are?! I didn't know that… color me fascinated!
"The choice to have or not to have sex is based on the idea that it is the most personal and spiritual connection two people can share, and not to be entered into lightly. "
Ah but see that's your moral view of sex. Sexuality is a huge part of being human. The relationship any individual has to their own sexuality is their relationship to it. I don't think there's a "right way" to be human and sexual. I'm a little confused over the whole sex being a "right" thing…. just because that's your take on it doesn't mean it's everyone's. Humans ARE sexual creatures, just like most all animals, the only difference is we can form thoughts and opinions and make choices around our sexuality. So while many animals are just driven by their biological programming, and so are we do a degree, we can make the choice to
Considering the birth control pill is also a medication that HAS to be prescribed it has to be covered and fall under an insurance plan. It's not available over the counter and with good reason… it's tinkering with your hormones and should be managed by a doctor. Again, I may follow a very healthy lifestyle and never have high cholesterol… that doesn't mean that I get to just say "yeah but I don't live my life in a way that would have me needing Crestor therefor it shouldn't be covered."
"As far as effectiveness. It's well known that if used correctly a condom is extremely effective (and self control, AKA abstinence, is 100% effective, and if you can't control yourself, take it out back and…..well you know)."
No that's not accurate. Male condoms have a typical use failure rate of 18%. Oral contraceptives are HALF that, or to put it another way, twice as effective.
West Kagle says
Yeah, It's more of a modified Shintoism. I turned my back on the Christian faith (which had been literally beaten into me since I was 5) for many reasons, but one is I don't believe in their almighty creator. So I can't take Shintoism as it is. Amaterasu is an eternal being, and the beginning of the Shinto religion.
I believe in the honor aspect and the reverence of ones ancestors part of the belief. The notion of the many minor deities is ok as long as they are just spirits of passed on humans who took up responsibility of that domain.
The fact that you would be surprise by this is the bases of my distain for religious zealots. I don't advertise my belief, I'm not trying to convert anyone to it, and It's never in anyone's face, business, or private lives (and I sure don't let it dictate my world view).
Paul Spoerry says
+West Kagle Yeah I get that. If asked I usually declare I'm an atheist because it's the quickest answer. It's not entirely true. I find Taoism (not the part that gets highly religious but the original text… which was distinctly non-religious in the Western sense) to most align. I've done Buddhist meditation retreats and whatnot but don't subscribe to the religious aspects. I just think that it's a really solid form of psychology/study of "being" human.
West Kagle says
Agreed. I usually do the same. Most people would call me an atheist or non-believer.
I also find the eastern religions to be the most spiritually healthy. Shintoism, with a few modifications, lent itself to be the most non-religious religion.