Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
The Never Ending War on Women-brought to you by the TN legislature
The Never-ending GOP War on Women
The Tennessee House of Representatives took 20 minutes out of the schedule today to debate a non-binding resolution urging Congress to strip away contraceptive coverage for hundreds of thousands of women who are now covered thanks to the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010.
During the debate Rep. Sherry Jones (D-Nashville) spoke out against the resolution, pointing out that if we cared about protecting women?s reproductive health as much as we cared about covering Viagra, this wouldn?t even be an issue. Calling it silly posturing, she said that this is just indicative of a culture that wants to blame women for all the problems, and ignores the responsibility of the rest of society.
While Republican Rep. Dunn (R-Knoxville) said the issue of contraceptives was ?not germane? to the debate, his fellow colleagues weren?t quite with him. Rep. Sheila Butts (R-Columbia) recalled that her mother taught her that abstinence was the best route in life, and instead of having contraceptive coverage, women should just be told to abstain. Meanwhile, Rep. Eric Watson (R-Cleveland) said he was ?glad to be a member of the church? and then read some scripture, Gen. 1:22 ?Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.?
Of course, lost in the debate among Republicans about whether or not they personally believe in using contraceptives, is whether they should have the right to take it?it seems by some of their comments, they aren?t too keen on the notion of having access to contraceptives altogether, let alone having insurance cover it.
This debate is rather simple. Should insurance cover preventative care? Yes, we tend to think so. Then the question is, how can you justify excluding reproductive healthcare in the ?preventative care? column? Thousands of women die each year as a result of insufficient access to reproductive care, and its unconscionable to ask them to pay the same or more for their health insurance as their male counterparts, but not have coverage for some of the most essential forms of health care to them.
Re: The Never Ending War on Women-brought to you by the TN legislature
Diabetics don't get free insulin, does that mean there is a war on diabetics? What about free Lasix - is there a war on people with Congestive Heart Failure too? There are things I do agree with in terms of the "war on women" rhetoric (forcing ultrasounds before abortions for example), however, again, nobody is outlawing the use of birth control. Prior to this HC law, it's never been required to be free.
It's not a "war" on anybody if you're not get everything you want, particularly things that are not vital to your very survivial, for free. Kids still go to bed hungry in this country, with limited resources it's a damn shame so many people are outraged about no free birth control considering.
No one is trying to ban access to insulin. Some of these comments indicate that my legislators would outright ban birth control if they could.
Above Us Only Sky
Thats what I view as the biggest concern as well.
My opinion on this is shifting, because the health care law would equally provide for any preventative medication to be free. I was actually thinking about the irony the other day...most health care plans that include maternity coverage specifically include something like "covered just as any other illness" in regards to copays, etc. In that light, it would be "new" to start treating it differently than other "illnesses" as far as payment structure.
Rep. Sheila Butts (R-Columbia) recalled that her mother taught her that abstinence was the best route in life, and instead of having contraceptive coverage, women should just be told to abstain.
What about men? Are men being told to just "abstain" as well. I really can't give anymore cool-headed responses about this issue. All I want to keep saying is fwck them.
VIAGRA is covered. Yes erectile disfuction is an issue. However it isn't life-threatening that a man can't get it up. No one is screaming that Viagra shouldn't be covered.
my read shelf:
But nobody is trying to ban access to birth control either. Just because legislators make comments based on their own personal beliefs, doesn't mean they are trying to outlaw access or use. A belief in abstinence doesn't translate into NO BIRTH CONTROL ever. We can go round and round. The rhetoric certainly works by design and is convenient in an election year. There are plenty of examples on the other side where liberal legislators would like to devise or adjust laws based on their own beliefs. Their comments indicate they would flat-out ban certain things if they could, but they are not going to. That doesn't mean they are declaring wars on anybody. Gun controls laws vs. a ban on guns all together is just one example.
Should married women abstain as well? There comes a point where a family no longer has the resources to feed and clothe children. And on the average household salary of $50k, even if that includes a SAHP, that point comes pretty fast.
This is totally insane.
Piggybacking on this...The idea that a woman should abstain, in the context of a marriage, would be a lot more likely to harm the "sanctity of marriage" more than some gays marrying would.
Rep. Sheila Butts (R-Columbia) recalled that her mother taught her that abstinence was the best route in life, and instead of having contraceptive coverage, women should just be told to abstain.
Is this an insert from the Onion? Wait, really? Though my mom was known to go on about how she had been 'active' for decades and only managed to have three kids (just keep your legs closed or use bc, natch). Still, that people with that attitude have the chance to make a law to "just keep em closed, or procreate for Gawd" is
What is totally insane is the ability for anyone to turn this arguement into a "republicans hate women and want to ban birth control" when this is not about banning anything. Let me remind you that birth control, by most plans, was never 100% paid for. As a matter of fact, just a few short years ago it wasn't on the formulary of many plans at all - so it wasn't covered even with a co-pay. Recall the pharmacist in - I think it was Washington state - that sued her employer (CVS or Rite-Aid) in early 2000s because it wasn't covered?
I'm not understanding your arguement - you are not suggesting that families need to choose birth control vs feeding and clothing their kids are you? Yes, there comes a point where anything you spend leaves you with less in terms of financial resources. That doesn't make it the responsibility of everyone to pay for these things for anyone else. Cable, the internet, cell phones - all these things that are not necessary to live, but certainly important in today's society. They cost money and suck resources out of paychecks. Does that mean it should all be free? By this logic, everything should be free. It sounds great to me - even republicans would like to live in eutopia, just convince me that economics 101 doesn't exist in this black hole of FREEdom and I'm on board with it.
The Lord Thy God Saith Be Fruitful And Multiply. The Lord Shall Provide For Thine Multitudes of Children.
I'm sorry...it's early and I'm tired, but are you truly comparing choosing to avoid pregnancy with choosing a cell phone or cable?
So, since cable and internet aren't necessary for life, we pay for those. And since avoiding pregnancy isn't necessary for life, we pay for that, too? What if avoiding pregnancy IS necessary for life? What then?
I keep wondering when we're going to find ourselves in Fahrenheit 451's society and wondering how we got there.
Yes,I'm smiling...I'm a marathoner!
Bloggy McBloggerson
CO Nestie Award Winner-Prettiest Brain-Back to Back!
2011 Bests
5K-22:49 10K-47:38 Half Mary-1:51:50
2012 Race Report
1/1-New Year's 5K-22:11
2/11-Sweetheart Classic 4-mile-29:49
3/24-Coulee Chase 5K-21:40
5/6-Colorado Marathon-4:08:30
5/28-Bolder Boulder 10K
MrsDL - The problem is that we can't use BC like the consumer product example. That's apples and oranges. Women take BC for other reasons that just having sex until their vaginas become cavernous and swallow men whole. If bc can't be paid for, then all medicines need to be treated the same way. Insulin - especially for Type II diabetes because if you took personal responsibility then yo azz wouldn't be fat. (I just had to bring that back today. *wink*)
These legislators aren't going to advocate for that. The goal here is too simply make these things for all women too costly to obtain. Get pregnant and don't want the kid, jump through 75 obstacles to have an abortion. Get pregnant and keep the kid - jump through 75 obstacles to get assistance. Don't want a baby at all - make it too costly for you to obtain birth control. Because not only did drug companies make it too costly, we stripped PP from funding and made it too costly for them to provide low-cost bc options.
When you pull all of those things together, I dare say women are justified in calling it a War on Women. These policies are all being implemented in conjunction. I'm just waiting for the day that forced sterilization comes back. Because if you are priced out of the market and the other options aren't readily made available to you, then what else is left?
MrsDL, I can see your argument although I disagree. But I really and truly do think there are some people who want to ban chemical contraception altogether, and have it NOT be available. I think Santorum is one of those people, as is that legislator in TN.
THAT is what is so scary to most of the women here. Taking contraception away would be a death sentence for some women. It would be a major major change in way of life for the majority of women in our country.
Shut your face, nitaw! All the no skittles people already think that's a great idea - if you go on welfare, you get an IUD till you get off! No more kids on my dime! - and at this rate, in a few years that might actually be seriously debated on a house or senate floor.
Scary isn't it?
it is why I rock myself to sleep at night :-)
Above Us Only Sky
And after this HC law, it's still not going to be 'free'. No one is going to be on the street corner handing it out like candy. I am still going to be paying for my BC through my insurance - I just won't have a co-pay because BC is considered preventive. That's an important distinction to make here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but insulin isn't a preventive - it's used to treat an existing condition. Ditto with Lasix. It's an incorrect comparison.
I can't quote everything you've said in this thread, but yes, there are lawmakers that want to ban birth control coverage for women (see Arizona). It's absurd. It's wrong. It's none of their business. I'm married. I have endometrosis. I take BC for a medical reason. Abstaining isn't an option for me. You are damn right I am outraged at lawmakers that are trying to take away something that is vital to me. At this point it has nothing to do with free/not free to me. It's the point that these people are WAY overstepping their boundaries, and it has to stop. Period.
Why is the onus being put on women? Why should I have to abstain when my husband, if he so desired, could go out and get as much Viagra as he wanted?