Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Birth Control Debate

I am furious. Absolutely livid.

You may have seen or heard about the states trying to pass laws concerning insurance companies providing Birth Control to employers. Several states are trying to pass laws inhibiting the ability of women to get the birth control use covered by medical insurance.

Two cases in particular have had me pretty riled up.

a.       First off, a male run committee is banning women from the courtroom. This is a violation of legal procedure and a blatant act of discrimination. This committee banned women from participating in a legal proceeding. This is not acceptable. This issue does not affect a man’s reproductive rights, it affects a woman's reproductive rights and they have denied the women that would be effected by this issue the right to defend her own rights and perspectives. They flat out said "No Women Allowed" to participate in this legal proceeding that effects their rights as citizens of this country. This is immoral in terms of equality in our justice system.

b.      The employer themselves are not handing out the birth control. Employees have to go through insurance companies and pharmacies for that. All the employer is doing is allowing FOR THE CHOICE of the employee to choose whether or not that option is cohesive with their lifestyle. If the employer has a religious objection to contraceptive use that is absolutely ok. The employer can choose not to use it and that is his/her choice. HOWEVER, he does not have the right to tell his employees what they can or cannot do in their personal lives. That is infringement on personal privacy and freedom.

Any man or woman is allowed to hold whatever religious beliefs they choose. That's fine. However, religious freedom stops there. They have no right to force those beliefs on others or use those beliefs to control the lives of the people around them. In fact, I believe escaping this problem was why people set sail from the mother country and started their very own colonies.

Religious freedom is a personal path. Having religious freedom does not mean you have a right to impose your beliefs on anyone else. That would be impinging on the religious freedom of others who may not feel that these mandates are sacrilegious.

c.       People assume that it is easy for women to pay out of pocket for contraceptives, and look at it as if it's just as easily accessible without insurance. Limiting the availability will make it harder to obtain. Birth control can cost over a hundred dollars a month, because there are different pills and forms of contraception for different bodies and needs. This does not always provide for an affordable solution to women who need hormone therapy for whatever their medical use.  

d.      Birth control isn't just being used as contraceptive (Which brings us to our next issue). Birth control is used to regulate and treat many female related medical problems.  Hormone contraceptives regulate hormones! Shocker.

1.      Often women have severe hormonal imbalances and hormone contraception brings the female system back into balance and establishes a normal hormonal pattern. i.e. PMDD.

2.      Birth control is used to regulate and return menstruation in women that have stopped menstruating due to hormone issues.

3.      It is used to lessen ovarian cysts in people with Poly Cystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS).

4.      It reduces acne issues.

Employers in Arizona are trying to force women to provide proof that their contraceptive use is for non-contraception purposes in order to have it covered by medical insurance.

How about medical confidentiality? No one besides you and your doctor has the right to private medical information. A person’s medical history is confidential. Employers have no right to access employee medical history. Forcing women to provide ‘proof of medical need’ is invasive and violates a persons right to privacy.

Think about it, how would you feel if you had to sit down with your boss and discuss your reproductive health issues? As a man, how comfortable would you be talking to your boss about your need for medication to correct erectile dysfunction or to authorize a prostate exam? So why is it ok to try and force women to talk about their reproductive medical issues. Yes, Mr. Paysme I have poly cystic ovarian syndrome which means I have small cysts lining my ovaries. The only treatment available is hormone contraceptive. Would you please authorize the insurance company to pay for my medication so that the large number of cysts developing on the interior of my ovum do not continue to grow and potentially make me infertile? Is this really a conversation that your boss has any right to be having with you? No.

Since this is running on a “religious freedom” platform… When did the x-tian males/politicians forget that Free Will is one of the religious tenets set out by their god? To deny a woman the right to choose what is best for her is to deny her 'god given right' of free will. If they run on a religious freedom platform, then it can be said that not allowing a woman the choice to be on birth control violates the woman’s religious beliefs if she believes religiously that she has free will. While I understand that many men wish women didn’t have free will, we’re no longer living in the good ole days of the 1950’s. Women can vote now and everything. Get used to it.

You can’t have a law that cries “This is my religious freedom!” when that law would potentially violate the religious freedom of the people it effects.

 That's not even touching on the issue that not everyone is the same religion and that being on birth control does not violate other peoples religious beliefs. However, I'm willing to bet that being oppressed and being persecuted by a majority would be against the beliefs of many.

How about this. In fairness to equal rights, if we are going to police womens sexual reproductive choices, we should police men’s as well. Men should have restricted and documented access to condom purchase. Women should stop taking birth control, and also offering sex, except in the sole instances that they are trying to conceive a child. Finally, men must stop masturbating. After all, spilling a man’s seed is a waste of gods gift.

No one has the right to come into your home and police your sexual activity.

No one has the right to decide when and/or if you have children.

Procreation isn’t a requirement in life, it’s a choice in life. Being on birth control doesn’t mean people won’t ever have children. It means that people are choosing when it is in their best interest to. If they choose to. Employers, politicians, the government… none of the people have the right to tell a person if and when they must have children. Preventing the ability to plan, or not, for a family is doing just that.

These laws are discriminatory. The theory is that “they’re protecting the religious freedom of the employer”. If you buy that, and while I do recognize that there are conservative women that support these laws, the majority of the politicians pushing for these regulations are overwhelmingly male. Men do not have to live with the consequences of these laws. Only women do.

All these laws come down to power. Employers trying to exert their personal power, under the guise of religious freedom, in order to control the choices of female employees.

Also as a related side note, some legislators would like to define beginning of life at the egg stage. Hah! Um, does that mean every time I menstruate I'm having an abortion? By this logic, employers should ENCOURAGE birth control pills because birth control works by stopping ovulation. If an egg is not release then it cannot be fertilized, but by extension it will also remain alive and viable in the ovary. So really, birth control is PRESERVING the potential for life by not "killing" the egg that is lost during un-impregnated menstruation.

I think I just found a flaw in someone’s logic.

Politicians are dumb.


  1. Carefully, I say that I agree that much of what you say I am in agreement with.However if a single employer (as in "not a corporation") has an objection to paying for such things on his religious grounds, he should be able to swing it that these things are covered by the insurance on a basis where the co-pay covers what he'd be spending if he didn't give a crap. That way, his conscience is clear and the woman can deal with her own conscience.

    Additionally, the main debate (though not the whole thing) has revolved around forcing Catholic organizations to do this against their religious tenents. This is an abridgement of the Church/state seperation by the current administratio, and has been done in as high-handed a manner as the administration can manage. If the establishment clause keeps the church out of city hall, then it must keep the federal government out of the Catholic social service, or else it is just a tool of persecution.

    That said, I've said before on another's blog that too many politicians on both sides take sincerely held views of their constituents and use them as a cudgel against the other party, with we the people caught between. Or in your words, politicians are dumb.

  2. I could not agree more.

  3. I have a good idea: how about employers stop paying for health insurance and give the money to their employees as a raise. Then everyone can buy the insurance they like and no one has to have their free will trampled on on either side of the argument.

    1. That doesn't sound like a bad idea, especially as insurance comes out of employees pay checks anyways.