Birth control pills generally cost less than fifty dollars per month. You can get condoms for the price of a cup of coffee. If you frequent some really interesting truck stops one can pick up the sort of condoms that look like they were made for that thing from Alien for a few quarters. If somebody can be expected to pay for other optional, recreational devices and services, such as cell phones and cable television, they can cover the cost of their own birth control. Those who can’t afford to pay for birth control simply shouldn’t have sex. For some reason nobody wants to even mention that as an option. Let’s just call that free, unsubsidized birth control.
Like any topic that comes out of the Obama administration, the contraception issue isn’t really about contraception. The contraception issue is just a puppet show. So while Obama plays an urban Sherry Lewis; putting the words in the mouth of Kathleen “Lamb Chop” Sebelius, nobody is talking about gas prices, the economy, or the real unemployment rate (not the doctored numbers that pour forth from the regime). The real game here is about his re-election.
The Obama administration and their surrogates are trying to invent a political issue from the pop culture dust. What they have done is raise a completely irrational topic, such as suggesting that there are people out there who want to ban all contraception. They ascribe this ridiculous position to the Republicans (none of whom have ever said they wanted to end a woman’s right to safely boink). Lastly, they get their allies in the media to echo this position until hopefully everyone believes that conservatives want all women to be barefoot and pregnant. It is no simpler than that. There is more credibility to the statement that Obama hates white people than there is to the idea that Republicans want to end birth control. Don’t get fooled by this obvious bit of tom foolery.
Categories: Humor, PJ Lifestyle Columns, Relationships, Sex
Tags: Catholic, contraception, Freedom of Religion, Obamacare
Quibble- part of the marriage covenant is that you have a right to have sex with your spouse on a regular basis, unless illness or mutual fasting should preclude such congress.
HAH! Try selling that to my first wife.
Which is why she’s your first wife. Which implies at least one other…
This was an awesome article and to be honest I never thought about it in the way you put it.
“Those who can’t afford to pay for birth control simply shouldn’t have sex.”
Actually, the poor have had free medical care including contraception since forever.
“What they have done is raise a completely irrational topic, such as suggesting that there are people out there who want to ban all contraception. They ascribe this ridiculous position to the Republicans (none of whom have ever said they wanted to end a woman’s right to safely boink).”
This may be the media putting words in his mouth, but isn’t Rick Santorum anti-birth control? (I only know what I read on the internet.)
JFTR: Our family health care plan already covers birth control pills and the doctor’s visit required for a prescription. I am glad it does because we pay an outrageous amount for it, and don’t use it much. I don’t feel bad sticking them with bills, it is really my money.
I gotta admit, other people’s genital relief just isn’t on my financial priority list.
**From an intellectually honest standpoint mandating that insurance cover birth control it is no different than demanding that the insurance companies to pay for a football players shoulder pads and helmet, or a leather jacket for those who recreationally ride motorcycles**
___________________
Actually, if we are going to be honest, shoulder pads and helmets and leather jackets PREVENT injury. Contraceptives are designed to CAUSE injury, they are intended to make healthy organs dysfunctional.
They don’t make organs dysfunctional, they simply put them in a different mode of operation.
disease.
Who said it was?
Look, between menarche and menopause the ovaries spend most of their time in non-pregant mode, where they drop one egg a month. When a woman gets pregnant her ovaries switch to pregnant mode, where they don’t produce eggs. All contraceptives do is switch ovaries into pregnant mode. They’re no more dysfunctional than a sleeping computer.
**they can cover the cost of their own birth control. Those who can’t afford to pay for birth control simply shouldn’t have sex**
_______________
Again, if we are going to be intellectually honest here, if we take the third-party insurer out of the equation, people still do not have to use their own money to buy contraceptives.
For those who think that employers should be required to subsidize the sex lives of their employees and no one should be required to pay for contraceptives themselves, we already have that. No employee anywhere uses his or her own money to buy contraceptives. In every case, that money was given to them by the employer.
The employer pays the employee a wage. The employee is then free to use a portion of those funds to buy whatever they want — contraceptives, porn, drugs, food, clothes, gas, pay rent, and so on. All of the money that an employee has came from the employer.
Having an insurance company pay for contraceptives merely means that the same money that the employer would have given to the employee directly is now given to the insurer instead to give to the pharmacy. All that accomplishes is to inject the employer and insurer into the bedroom — LESS privacy for the employee, and LESS freedom for the employer, insurer, and employee alike.
@Bender – I’m not sure what planet you’re from, but at the place I’ve been employed at for the past 30-some years, I’ve been required to earn my income. I trade a skill for a paycheck which compromises a win-win situation for me and my employer. I get to come back each day and continue earning, and my employer gets to count on my effort as long as both sides of the party are happy with the arrangement.
Any money that my employer has to divert directly to the government as taxes, on my behalf because apparently I can’t be trusted to manage this detail, is still considered part their cost of employment.
So my pockets would be fuller if not for the toll of the various government programs which fund ridiculous programs whose true purpose is merely to keep politicians in office.
Your analogy that it’s still the same money just coming for a different donor is absolutely ludicrous! What office are you running for anyway?
Yeah, you missed my point entirely.
That’s because your point was moronic.
Rick Santorum is Catholic so he is probably not in favor of contraception, but I don’t think he has ever said it should be banned nationwide. He did say in an interview that the states had the right to ban it, but he was making a 10th amendment point about states rights. Under the 10th the states could ban chewing gum if they they were so inclined. We see this in the gay marriage issue. Some states have it, some don’t allow it. I don’t believe any conservative or Republican has said that contraception should be banned across the country.
Maybe the law of intended consequences applies here. See http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/03/pfizer-recall-could-women-who-get-pregnant-from-recalled-birth-control-pills-sue/.
“Sex is not a right”
“Medical Insurance is not a right”
OK. So rights have nothing to do with it.
“Sex is a privilige.”
I do not agree. Priviliges are granted by someone. It is simply something that people do for various reasons. It is an integral part of our biological function although not neccessary for individual survival (but then who wants to reduce life to mere survival?
“No woman ever uttered the words, “Gee, I better take my birth control pill before I get cancer.”
Actually oral contraceptives decrease incidence of Ovarian and Endometrial cancer in women depending on how long they took them. Overall decrease in mortality however is modest. There are also other medical uses.
Many a young woman has returned from the doctor to tell her mother that the pills were prescribed for ‘cramps’ (they actually work for that)
” birth control it is no different than demanding that the insurance companies to pay for a football players shoulder pads and helmet, or a leather jacket for those who recreationally ride motorcycles.”
Football is a voluntary activity. If a football player is injured why pay for knee surgery when they could just get a desk job?
Insurance companies do not pay for items you can buy in the store like helmets or condoms. They pay for things you can only get from a doctor like IUD’s or Oral contraceptives.
“Cancer isn’t a choice. It is a life threatening random event that can wipe out a lifetime of savings while trying to fight it off. I’m also sure nobody visits the Mustang Ranch and asks for the strep throat and salmonella package.”
Nobody ever opened a pack of Camels hoping for throat cancer either but smoking is a choice and we still pay for the treatment.
I respect the the Catholic Church. I do have some concerns.
These kinds of arguments are easily brushed aside. There is a very legitimate argument to be made: Government has no business mandating what is covered by insurance companies.
So why does the church not make that argument? Because they are very much in the hospital and health care business. They want some mandates but not this one.
Problem is for most non-Catholics the objection to birth control matters as much as what is non-Kosher to non-Jews.
I think that the Church will win this but on political grounds. Most of the discussion, unfortunately has not centered on the real issues.
Assuming we are talking about consensual sex with someone else, and not a date with Rosey Palms, yes, sex is a privilege. The prospective partner grants that privilege.
“Nobody ever opened a pack of Camels hoping for throat cancer either but smoking is a choice and we still pay for the treatment.”
Every insurance provider I know has higher premiums for smokers and people who are way overweight. So their choices affect the price of their insurance.
But of course!
Sex is the world’s most potent distractor. The socialists who transformed the nations of Scandinavia learned that long ago: Encourage the citizens to focus on sex and you can rob them utterly blind while they’re looking the other way. Our domestic leftists have absorbed the lesson from the Scandies and have used it to great advantage in American politics since the late Sixties.
The presidential contest of 2012 is likely to turn on matters sexual:
– Mormon doctrine about wifely submission;
– Catholic doctrine about contraception and abortion;
– Newt Gingrich’s infidelities and divorces.
Whichever Republican gains the nomination will undoubtedly be barraged with sexual and sexually-flavored insinuations. We’ve already seen some of that hurled at both Santorum and Romney — and neither man has acted as if he were properly prepared for it. You’d think conservative muttaween were roaming the streets of America, corralling women in tight or revealing outfits and sending them home to change.
We must counterattack — and as hard as we possibly can. We must demonstrate that we know the derivation of the word Republic, which the Left would prefer that we all forget (and which, unfortunately, a lot of us have forgotten). Above all, we must show courage…a virtue in declining supply among Republican politicians.
i do wish mr. transparency hadn’t hidden all of his past from us. i’m sure somewhere there was a real job as a magician, or puppeteer, or pickpocket, or something along those lines, on his extensive resume. he appears to have considerable experience at diverting one’s attention from the game at hand. has he agreed yet to enlighten us prior to the next election? can’t imagine any sane or properly educated people re-electing anyone with so little respect for his/her employer as to consider them so far beneath him/her as to not warrant proper and civil consideration, especially for such an important position.
while we are at it, i wonder where he picked up the traits involving delving into an opponent’s past in order to find fault, and then wreck his/her political future, all the while using political privilege and slight of hand to obscure his own past. that’s is how he got into the senate to begin with, wasn’t it?
in short, we need to start asking questions of mr. transparancy, get over the name calling, and continue until we find out who this man really is. name calling has always been a cover for a lack of good argument and an immediate loser in any debate.
He lso wants to divert our attention from his latest budget offering