Contraceptives and the way things “should be” or Where is that time machine?
82
At some point while crossing the 49th parallel two years ago, I must have encountered and passed through an undisclosed time warp. I didn’t feel anything untoward, no nausea, no visual distortions, no rumbling or vibrations of my 2006 Montana other than the normal rubber tires on asphalt one would expect from driving on an Interstate. No, nothing happened, at least as far as I can remember, to suggest I was traveling back through time.
Indeed, so subtle was this passage, I wasn’t even aware such a phenomenon of physics had occurred until just lately. But it must have been so; it’s the only possible explanation.
I’ve passed twenty-six months here in the United States and though I’ve often been surprised, sometimes discouraged, even appalled, always perplexed, occasionally amused, soundly entertained, highly annoyed, both bored and engrossed at the same time and quite fascinated by the political and social spectrum around me, only recently have I surmised I’ve actually time-traveled.
What else can account for it?
Did my ears deceive me? Didn’t I just hear the leading wannabe-president-of-the-United-States-of-America, Rick Santorum, just announce that once he was in office he would --
“Confront the dangers of contraception and groups who think it’s okay. It’s not okay, because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also procreative…”
“How things are supposed to be?” A state mandated “sexual realm?” The “dangers of contraceptives?” Uh-ubba-ubba-uh… whew! Gosh. Wow! Me at a loss for words?
Did he say “a license to do things?” Is that next? My mental image: “I’m here to apply for my license to enter the sexual realm, sir, and here’s a copy of my marriage certificate… What do you mean by I’m too old? ...No, I’m not fertile, but I am married... I have to meet both requirements? ...What’s that you said; sex after menopause isn’t how things are supposed to be…”
Then, before I had a chance to catch my breath, and my mind was still reeling with questions and scenarios, not least of which was: Don’t married women use contraceptives, too? I got another whammy up the side of the head.
Santorum goes on to say:
“…if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”
Sex "deconstructed" to the level of mere pleasure? Duh!
I once wrote a comment on an article on sex education where some dimwit wrote that would put "ideas in our kids' heads" (now there's a thought: put some ideas in their heads like protect yourself from disease or unwanted pregnancy -- seeing as abstinence only is working SO well...) and such education was a plot by Planned Parenthood to make our young people into sex addicts so they'd have more abortions, providing profits to PP... Well you get the drift. I wrote that sex was part of being human, a biological imperative and therefore we had no need to be turned into addicts. We are born such.
I was a tad surprised at the number of women who wrote a response to my response to his response (are you still with me?) saying we are not ALL addicted to sex. According to these women, most women don't like sex, find it "icky" and one even wrote it was "akin to swimming in a septic pond."
Really? That's when I realized I must be a slut, though I never though of myself as such before.
Okay, I'm going on record to say I like sex, have always liked sex since I first discovered it, still like it at sixty and hope I continue to like it unto death. I consider it fun, a sharing of my physical self with another, pleasurable, free -- (what other fun thing is free these days?) -- a good way to spend an otherwise dull afternoon and very nice indeed.
Stone me.
Until the past decade, the only downside was the remote possibility I might get pregnant. (I did seem to suffer from excess fertility in my younger years -- three unplanned pregnancies in as many years -- even with the evil assistance of demon contraceptives and no, none of them were terminated.)
Luckily, both contraceptives and I grew up, got better at our respective roles, more efficient.
Enter Santorum’s billionaire sugar-daddy, Foster Friess, who said –
"You know, back in my days, they used Bayer Aspirin for contraceptives. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly."
Which isn’t even original having made the rounds of bad jokes back in the early sixties, when “the pill” first came on the market, though it is still as crass as it was back then. One could even purchase a “birth control pill” in the gag shops. It was a disc-shaped sponge with instructions that read, “Place on right knee. Bring left knee to other side. Squeeze tightly.” I wondered then, as I wonder now why men thought this so funny. Do they truly want women to keep their legs tightly together?
Assuming I’m remembering correctly, the years of my youth being such a distant epoch, men used to expend a great deal of time, energy and financial resources on trying to pry those knees apart – but perhaps men have changed since then. Certainly the baseness of their wit has not.
How about using a big safety pin for contraception, fellas: pin your zippers to your navels?
Am I the only one who sees something slanted in all this: Oh if only those sluts would keep their legs closed we wouldn't have any of these darn ole troubles. Yep, since the days of Eve, you women have been nothing but trouble. Don't blame us menfolk; it's all the evil, sinful, lustful women at fault. And imagine their gall. After seducing us poor innocent men into having sex, they want to avoid the God-given consequences of their evil act.
Now I know the debate began as to whether or not health-insurance coverage should include contraceptives at no co-pay, and as employers are the major sources of health insurance in the United States, such requirements would cut across ALL employers, including – gasp,no!—those institutions run by the Catholic Church. Which, apparently, is a blow against freedom of religion.
Though one might ask why any of us should be limited to the medical care our employer decides is right for us based on his religious, political or moral stances alone. What if your employer is from one of those religions that doesn’t agree with blood transfusions; should YOUR coverage be so limited in the name of HIS religious freedom? But that isn’t the issue under discussion so I won’t go there. Nor will I bring up how I feel about employer based medical care, either. I’m against it, by the way. It seems to me to put American industry under a terrible burden, making them less competitive as no other country demands this of employers… oops. Sorry.
So vociferous was the response, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a congressional investigation into the whole contraceptive-coverage versus religious freedom issue, chaired by Republican Darryl Issa. How many women were invited to speak, or sit on the panel? ZERO!
And when some women questioned that, they were told only clergymen were invited to speak.
What does this Government Panel and the Catholic Church have in common? A group, entirely male, deciding the future of contraception – an issue that affects only women. The one true thing that can be said of both of these groups is that none of them will ever be pregnant.
Never mind that 98% of American Catholic women use contraceptives at some time in their lives. Forget that 99% of ALL American women use contraceptives. Against God’s plan for us, this “license to do things in the sexual realm.“ Not unless we're prepared to drop baby after baby until we drop ourselves.
It isn’t the question of whether or not contraceptives should be provided at no cost that has spurred me to write. (I always had to pay for it, even under our Canadian health care system -- money well spent considering the cost of having and raising a child.)
No, it is the quote above that disturbs me: the anti-contraception promise of the GOP’s leading (for the moment) presidential candidate. It smacks of the antiquated control over my gender so rampant in history. It isn’t a political issue, contraception, or shouldn’t be.
Connor Friesdorf of the Atlantic finds it "baffling," adding that "Any politician who regards the adult use of contraceptives as a matter under his purview cannot lay claim to the limited government label."
I suppose nothing inflates the ego quite like being a “leader.” Apparently, Santorum, like so many others, is suffering from the delusion his beliefs are everyone’s beliefs – or “should be.” His anti-contraceptive, anti-woman, anti-sex message is distasteful to anyone of a thinking mind and a love of freedom.
Really, what does he think he’s doing? If he wants to be President, doesn’t he, like, have to get people to vote for him? Women make up 52% of the electorate, and out of that majority, 40% are unmarried, many unmarried with children, most doing things in the sexual realm. Wake up, Rick! You don’t win elections by catering to the people who share your views and will vote for you anyway.
Michael Scherer of Time notes that 99% of women aged 15 to 44 have used contraceptives, and only 8% of voters view it as morally wrong. "In politics, it is generally not a good thing to characterize something nearly every adult in the country has happily used as wrong."
Contraceptives as controversy?
That’s why I’m sure I’ve time-traveled. No doubt about it. Yes, I’m back in the years of my adolescence when only married women were allowed access to contraceptives – and the rest of us just prayed to whatever higher power we held. The way things “should be.”
I can’t believe we’re here.
Again.
And what I really can’t comprehend is this discussion over contraceptives, complete with congressional dog and pony (all male) show, considering all the real issues facing us. War, famine, economy, crippling debt, a polarized population, a frozen government, a financial house of cards crumbling around us, unemployment, homelessness: worthy of discussion, debate, action? No-- all of it pales beside the spectre of contraceptives.
I don't want to hear about contraception, an issue long-settled and accepted.
Most everyone who does not think sex is akin to swimming in a septic pond, (which I will continue to believe is the majority of us, though if I am naught but a lonely freak and the "nice" women of America really do abhor sex, it does explain a few things I've found puzzling) -- sorry -- most of us who are sexually active also think birth control is a completely cool thing, as noted by our lack of ten children.
So enough with the holier-than-thou routine! It's old. Can we please separate religion and state and get on with the business of deciding a government? Your religion is your business and mine is my business. So is my sex life. I have no need of guidance from a bunch of elected officials and religious leaders (most all of whom are male and some of whom are supposed to be virgins and therefore all are unqualified to speak for me.)
I found a great photo that says it all. See below:
Got it?
I don't want to hear the candidate's religious beliefs. I expect our leaders to be tolerant of those whose beliefs are different from theirs. I certainly don't want to hear their views on how I, or anybody else should comport themselves sexually.
I'll tell you what I do want to hear.
I want to hear what these jack-asses are going to do about those truly important issues, like jobs, ending the squandering of money and lives on war, protecting the rights of the people who put them in office, keeping the nation safe without trampling all over our civil liberties, fixing our infrastructure, keeping the mail going, sorting out our economic woes and balancing the budget. You know -- the stuff we elect people to do.
We don't look to DC for spiritual and moral guidance. That's not the job the candidates are applying for. Someone should explain to Mr. Santorum and all the others who would make personal decisions for us the difference between the offices of President and Pope.
What is this obsession on controlling the private, personal lives of the people? Politicians who honestly seem to believe they have that kind of power! (What slow learners!) Gay sex, sex education, family planning, contraception: sex, sex, sex! Common sense would dictate this election should be all about the economy. But apparently, it's not. It's about sex.
“The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.” – Pierre Elliot Trudeau
- Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
This article is about reproductive rights and choices,pro-birth control,not the ethics of abortion (though no discussion of this issue can avoid that heated debate.) It examines the ever-tightening of controls over women's reproductive choices.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (3)
- Funny (1)
- Awesome (3)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
Lmmartin, thanks so much for posting such an informative, infuriating, entertaining, and galvanizing essay. Sanity is so refreshing! I've voted this Up and Interesting.
It's exhilarating to find more and more women fighting back against this reactionary Teapot GOP nonsense. Time warp, indeed!
The cartoons are terrific! I especially like the one of the Pope and Santorum in bed with the couple to protect them from government intrusion...
Incidentally, has anyone Googled "Santorum"? Try it ...
You have written a very powerful article that questions the insane thinking of a still male dominated society. I have shared your article through Twitter and Facebook and will continue to spread your very important message. You are an enlightened woman and your numbers are growing. Unfortunately there are still many woman out there who support the men in authority who continue to dictate to and enslave them. This will continue as long as woman give their power to men. It starts at a very young age when women dote on their sons whom they see as bread winners who will take care of them in their old age. Traditionally, men are taught from a very young age by their own mothers to see women as inferior so is it any wonder that so many of them end up in positions of authority implementing what they have been taught. Mothers who do this don't even realise that they are nurturing men to be like this. When more women speak up as you have done here and reclaim their self respect and dignity then more men will start listening. But ultimately it all starts with the relationship between mother and son and as yet that is still the root cause of the problem you have so eloquently written about here. Thank you.
Maureen Dowd has just published a great column in the New York Times:
Rick’s Religious Fanaticism
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/dowd-ric
Here are some excerpts:
===========
Rick Santorum has been called a latter-day Savonarola.
That’s far too grand. He’s more like a small-town mullah.
“Satan has his sights on the United States of America,” the conservative presidential candidate warned in 2008. “Satan is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.”
When, in heaven’s name, did sensuality become a vice? Next he’ll be banning Barry White.
========
Mullah Rick, who has turned prayer into a career move, told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down a ban on contraception. And, in October, he insisted that contraception is “not O.K. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”
========
Senator Sanitarium, as he was once dubbed on “The Sopranos,” sometimes tries to temper his retrogressive sermons so as not to drive away independent and Republican women who like to work, see their kids taught by professionals and wear Victoria’s Secret.
He told The Washington Post on Friday that, while he doesn’t want to fund contraception through Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t ban it: “The idea that I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case.”
That doesn’t comfort me much. I’ve spent a career watching candidates deny that they would do things that they went on to do as president, and watching presidents let their personal beliefs, desires and insecurities shape policy decisions.
Mullah Rick is casting doubt on issues of women’s health and safety that were settled a long time ago. We’re supposed to believe that if he got more power he’d drop his crusade?
The Huffington Post reports that Santorum told Philadelphia Magazine in 1995 that he “was basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress.” Then, he said, he read the “scientific literature.”
He seems to have decided that electoral gold lies in the ruthless exploitation of social and cultural wedge issues. Unlike the Bushes, he has no middle man to pander to prejudices; he turns the knife himself.
========
Why is it that Republicans don’t want government involved when it comes to the economy (opposing the auto bailouts) but do want government involved when it comes to telling people how to live their lives?
In a party always misty for bygone times bristling with ugly inequities, Santorum is successful because he’s not ashamed to admit that he wants to take the country backward.
Hi Tammy. Always nice to hear from you. Yeah, unbelievable it is. Santorum isn't the first to be dubbed a nut case. Remember Bachman? Now there's another. Hard to believe these people got as far a they did. So how is that? What's up America?
Thanks LHWritings. Amazing how those who bleat about small government actually want its long arms and grasping fingers everywhere it has no place to be. I don't want to return to the fifties. If I must time travel, can it please be forward?
Thanks Spirit Whisperer, though I do find your message just a little difficult to swallow: if men feel entitled to control everything it's the women's fault for how we raised them. Really? I wouldn't know having only daughters whom I tried to raise with the idea they were equal, allowed to pursue their own path in life, independent and dignified human beings. If I had had a son, I'd like to think I'd have raise him the same way and taught him all he needs to know, like how to cook, be nurturing and respectful of women. But thank you for your thoughtful comment even if I do object to once more hearing "it's all the fault of women."
Hi LHWritings: Thanks for the link and the excerpts. You know, many of my friends from other countries have written asking me "What is going on in America? What's wrong with them that they'd put such a man up for office?" One even said, "If someone like Santorum was running here, we'd put him in an asylum." This obsession with sex on the part of our would-be leaders is making America a laughing-stock -- again!"
Thanks all, Lynda
No Linda I am not saying it is all the fault of women and I am sorry that you read my comment like that. I do however feel that women have apart to play in the way things have turned out. Every man has had a mother and those who have been lucky enough to have been brought up by a woman then should surely respect other women if they have been taught to do so. I also also realise that most of what we teach our children is subconscious I think it is time for everyone involved to take responsibility and move forward rather than simply pointing the finger and blaming men in authority for the plight of American women today.
St. Francis Xavier said “Give me the child until he is seven and I’ll give you the man”. why is this not the case with women who have the child from age zero?
Because the child also has a father, uncles and aunts, teachers and role models, a church perhaps, society as a whole who play an enormous role in the making of a man. To say that women are to blame for male dominance is a simplistic statement. Granted, a mother's influence is primary, but what if that mother is dominated by her husband, or beaten by her husband; or is alone and living in abject poverty? What of the messages of the media? What of a child's ability to view the world and how it works for himself? And finally, what of nature itself?
By the way, Hitler said the same thing.
Oh, now I see your higher comment. No, that's not what you said, but that is one meaning of the words you did say. Anyway, why sit here and assign blame? (A wholly useless endeavor.) Let's just move forward. I could write volumes on the subtle messages of gender a child is subjected to, both boys and girls, but that is for another hub.
" No, that's not what you said, but that is one meaning of the words you did say." Very interesting words which imply that no matter what I say you will interpret my words to fit your world view. LOL! I love it!
You have a good day Linda and regardless I will continue to share your article.
Not so, Spiritwhisperer, but the idea that males dominate our society because of the way their mothers raised them certainly does suggest that women are responsible for male attitudes. I just thought your statement had an amusing connotation. In fact, the idea that mothers are responsible for the attitudes of their children go back to early Freud, who seemed to blame mothers for all the ills of society. OF course, he also believed that mothers were finally satisfied as women once they gave birth to a son, for then they too had created a penis. It never did occur to him that the powerlessness of womens position at that point in history might lead to a better hypothesis, that it might be the status of the male women coveted and not their sexual equipment. At any rate, mothers have been blamed for the acts of mass murderers, sociopaths and psychotics ever since. And now, mothers are responsible for the dominant attitude of males -- not the teachings of the church, etc, etc but the mothers themselves. That is what you have said; no interpretation needed, though all of this was meant in humor.
I do not take this fun debate serious in anyway. The last thing I would have thought is that you would no longer share my article because of my stated thoughts, assuming you to be a bigger person than that. Glad to know I was right.
A remarkable piece of writing, Lynda, and a wake-up call for every female voter. Cannot believe what an @$$#*!% Santorum is with his female-biased pronouncements. God help us! Voted UP, BTW.
Oh dear Lynda-I have to admit this article does make me feel a trifle self-conscious!But ,I do rather like sex ,and kids ,and I have no issues with contraception.....!
I must admit I find these shenanigans a bit bizarre in light of current global events.I am reminded of a very irate government minister on TV here back in the 70s, who,while busy condemning the disgraceful promiscuity that was becoming a plague on our little isle,declared 'There was no sex in Ireland, until the introduction of the television into good decent homes'(not verbatim!).
So maybe Mr Santorum should check that one out .....but then.....mmm maybe no TV might cause TV viewers to seek pleasure some other way-oh dear -did I say pleasure ? Surely not!
Could all this bs be an attempt to distract from the real issues that concern people at the moment ,like unemployment,foreclosures etc,.The man is an eejit.
This made me laugh all the way throughout! Voted up and sharing.
Thank you, drbj. Yes, surely I have time traveled -- can you think of another explanation. How many times does one battle have to be fought? Lynda
Hi Itakins -- I think I would ask your irate minister how it was, considering there was no sex in Ireland before television, there are SO many Irish in the world. Yes, I do know you are a devout Catholic; yes, I also know you do have ten children and that is your choice. But, you do not go 'round telling everyone else that your life is the epitome of righteousness and how "things should be" for all of us. Therefore, I respect you. But here is a man who is running to be the presidential candidate preaching religion and morality to us, in a country that supposedly prides itself on separation of church and state, a country made of people from all over the world representing all races and religions. This is just so wrong. Now I no longer need contraceptives, but coming out of the generation that fought so hard for equality and birth-control for women, I cannot accept this attempt to drag us back in time. The government has no place in my or anyone else's private lives. Is this an attempt to distract us? No, sadly enough, I'm not sure it is. I think these wowsers really do believe that this should be a white/Christian country complete with Sharia-like laws to make sure we all behave according to their personal vision. Separation of Church and Reality -- that one was funny! Thanks for commenting. Lynda
Hi Sooner, always happy to bring laughter to my friends. Lynda
Here I am again-but ,I have to say this really is positively weird .Surely we have more than enough historical and recent evidence of what nasty things happen -especially to little kids-,when organisations such as the church are given so much power.
Your fellow countryman Leonard Cohen ,whom I regard as a bit of a prophet,sang a song 20 years ago predicting ,among other note-worthy things ,the day was coming when 'they ' would hang a meter on our beds.And here we are -truly amazing .Maybe the Irish Catholic vote is still worth courting !
What ever happened to separation of "Church and State"? It seems there are those that would put us back in the dark ages. I for one, as a woman do not like the rhetoric of the Republican party. And they think they lost the last election because McCain was a moderate! Really.... Religion belongs in your home and in church not in our policy making and telling others what they can and cannot do in th privacy of their own homes. What is even more scary is that there are woman who have these same views. The Government has no right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own body. Doesn't the Government have better things to worry about?? Take our minds of the issues with sex and religion!
Now Santorum is bashing Higher Education because it makes one lose their religion after going to college. So we are suppose to be religious, but stupid, have sex only to have children and if you are fertile don't use birth control and pop one baby after another. Since I am 50 guess my sex life is over. Darn!
Thanks for the HUB :)
Hi again, Itakins (and you are always welcome) thanks for adding your thoughts. Yes, the Catholic church has a history of abuse of power -- well make that simply abuse -- and not the least of which is a denigration of women through history. In this you are very correct. Why should we allow someone to thrust his religious views on the population in a country that was founded on ideals that state exactly the opposite is beyond me. And how Santorum found enough support to get to where he is boggles my mind. Oh- by the way, Leonard Cohen, though much admired by me, is not one of my countrymen as I am Canadian and only a legal resident of the US. But if someone like Santorum is elected, I may return to Canada before the inquisitions begin...
Hi mkott -- I agree with every word you've written here. In between contraceptives and higher education, Santorum announced he'd like to see an and to prenatal testing because -- wait for it -- they lead to more abortions. I guess he is unaware of the hundreds of thousands of babies born to RH negative mothers who will die within hours of birth if their plight is not known ahead of time: one among many conditions affecting neonatal survival that prenatal testing is the only way to detect. As if the right to decide whether to bring a baby with little to no chance of survival beyond a short time of suffering is HIS to make! As to his remarks on education: religious, uneducated and pregnant -- does this bring anything to mind? Time travel, I tell you it's time travel. Yes, I'm sure there's a corelation between knowledge and loss of belief in religion and it doesn't take much thought to figure out why. About your sex life (and mine,) it will be over if and when I decide it will be over and so far, I don't feel that's likely to happen. Maybe we should start our own political movement: Over the pill but not over the hill. What do you think? Lynda
Leonard C is from Montreal:)
Maybe insurance companies need to stop paying for Viagra for men then it might be fair. I think government needs to clean up their own houses before starting on anyone elses. Why is it that it's always women's issues that are the issue? They need to pick on men issues for a while. Great hub!
Hey Itakins: I did not know that. (blush!)
Thanks for dropping by Bobbirant. Why is it always women who need the "guidance" and "direction?" Let alone pick on our issues. If it was men who got pregnant there'd be contraceptive vending machines in every gas station. Lynda
It's been a while since I had the opportunity to ask, but the last time I checked, there were contraceptive vending machines in every gas station (in the men's rest rooms). :) So where are the women's contraceptive vending machines?
Hi progressivist, While condoms are available in washrooms, we are speaking here of the "non-barrier" forms (as most long-term couples are not happy using condoms as a primary contraceptive) and my comment was meant to suggest that if men were the ones who got pregnant, morning-after pills would be available in gas stations. I should have been more specific -- excuse me.
Oh, I know . . . that was meant to point out the disparity between the availability of contraception for men vs. the availability of contraception for women. We're on the same page.
Hello Mrs. Lynda,
"I wrote that sex was part of being human, a biological imperative and therefore we had no need to be turned into addicts. We are born such." - I don't know here ... about being sexually addicted. I may just be a a weirdly created mutant, "never meant for mass-distribution" (Hunter S. Thompson).
I am certainly of the opinion that sexual preferences and bedroom details should be kept out of politics all together. Why is it important to me how and what Santorum likes (for example) ... geez, I don't even want to begin thinking ...
Not allowing contraceptives would turn the United States into the Phillipines, which is the fastest growing population in South-east Asia at the moment, percisely due to this reason: the country is in the heavy grip of Catholic lunatics which do not allow abortions, contraceptives and such. One immediate outcome is an unprecedented increase in poverty. All this donkeyness is beyond me ...
Great article as always!! Love the sarcasm. Santorum's got some serious issues ... I wonder what Freud would say. Haha ...
Cheers!
Lynda, I wish I had your sense of humor on all this stuff, but the crap the Sex Inquisition are pulling just keeps making me angrier.
The news just came in that Virginia has passed the ultrasound requirement for abortions. So even though it's medically unnecessary, and even if a woman doesn't want it, and even if her doctor doesn't think it's necessary (i.e., about 99.999999999% of the cases), a woman has to go over this additional hurdle. (The vaginal-probe requirement apparently has been dumped, because Va guv Bob McDonnell is vying to be the GOP's VP choice, and forcing women to have unnecessary probes stuck up their... well, you get the idea ... it would not have gone over well with "independent" women and probably a lot of GOP women as well) ...
It's back to the 1950s ... no, the 19th century ... no, the 13th century...
I'd say it's time to get back to the barricades, ladies...
Hi LHWritings, I agree with you completely. The debate in Virginia was truly horrifying, which in effect suggested that should I decide I cannot bring another baby into the world, I must submit to rape with a foreign object... Hoy!
See you at the barricades. Lynda
Hi there Happy. Didn't see your comment till now. Yes, I know some people choose not to be sexually active, but that does not change our biological programming. At any rate, it was a tongue-in-cheek comment meant to ridicule this country's obsession with all things sexual. Eschewing sex does not make one more "moral" nor does exercising one's sexuality make one immoral. I am beyond amazed at the current public dialogue on sex, even more so by political leaders who think our sex lives fall under their purview. I quote an anthropologist whose name I've forgotten who once wrote, "the only unnatural form of sex for humans is none at all." Personally, I wish these would-be leaders would get on with the real problems and leave our sexual choices up to us.
Thanks for commenting. Lynda
oooh. Control is really bad. Except when it's not, I guess. Imposing on private companies to dole out free stuff to empowered women is always welcome. That type of control never goes out of style.
Oh, yes, it's also OK when unelected spouses of presidents purport to control our eating habits. That's a good kind of control.
And it's OK for the Canadian government to control access to health care.
Santorum proposes to confront the dangers of some contraception? How awful.
We'd never want the government to confront dangers for us, would we? Never mind the constant barrage of baby seat admonitions or the avalanche of seat-belt warnings all funded by federal dollars. Evidently some danger confrontation is expected, but the cancer risks inherent in some contraceptives or the mechanical failure rate of other contraceptives should not be confronted. Those are too icky too comfortably confront.
What we need from our government is a cafeteria-style confrontation strategy.
Mr. Nicomp, I would drop condoms from airplanes world-wide if I could ... up to You if You use them or not. At least the option would be there.
All kinds of people who are irresponsible and in no way ready or prepared to have children, do have children. Then, those children have to be supported by all of us. Mrs. Lynda knows a thing or two about this and she can probably tell You more.
Either way, since many humans like to have sex as a means of entertainment or pleasure, contraceptives are needed. Otherwise there would be kids popping left, right and center ... please have some logic.
All the best.
Now,I am a bit confused here - living in a foreign land and all that - but do people not buy their own contraceptives in a pharmacy or supermarket ,as they do here. Is contraception something that everyone is entitled to free (in a manner of speaking ). If so, why do taxpayers have to fund this anyway ? I think I am missing something here.
Somehow an earlier comment in reply to Nicomp's first got lost in the shuffle. FYI -- the Canadian government does not control access to health care, Mr. O'Reilly's remarks to that effect notwithstanding. Each province administers it's own health plan with co-funding from federal income taxes thrown in. It is not parceled out, no caps, no co-pays, each patient deciding on which doctor they want... No access control whatsoever. You need it; you go for it. And, considering the total paid for Canadian health care on a per capita basis, it costs considerably less than the absolute bedlam called health care here in the US. I suggest you get your facts straight before repeating such misinformation.
But thank you for commenting, even if it is not germane to the point under discussion. Lynda
Hi yet agian, Nicomp, this hub wasn't about whether or not contraceptives should be paid by the health care carrier, which in many cases is the employer (which I think a bad idea and too great a burden on employers -- period!)but the idea that elected officials feel entitled to make such choices for us. That Santorum feels contraception and "proper" sex is within his realm of power and fodder for executive decision is not only distasteful but ridiculous in the extreme. Further, we (women) know the risks of contraception, but we also know the risks in pregnancy and child-birth, and we know whether or not we want more children, or will take those risks. Not a politician's call. No one's call but the individual woman herself.
That this debate is happening at all is mind-boggling, all things considered...
Hi Mr. Happy, Condoms certainly have their place, particularly in "informal" relations, but most committed couples prefer other means. Mind you, it makes no difference to most women, but most men claim condoms decrease their pleasure. So, most women in settled relationships will use other methods. Which is again, not the point. The idea that contraception is an evil unto itself is appalling. Thanks for your comment. Lynda
Hi itakins -- Condoms, spermicidal jellies and such are available at the supermarket or pharmacy. The "pill," the "ring," or an IUD must be provided by prescription and supervised by a doctor. The "morning after" pill requires a prescription in most states (kind of ridiculous when you consider it takes two weeks on average to get an appointment) though there is a movement to have them sold across the counter.
As I mentioned in the article, I personally have no problem with women paying for their own contraceptives which by my calculation is around $50-$75 a month in the US, but only $15-$20 in Canada -- don't ask me why. But, some believe such prescriptions should be free of charge to the end user. But the article isn't about whether or not contraceptive prescriptions should be free, but about the statements made by a candidate declaring contraception itself is an evil to be fought, that he would tackle once elected and that sex should be within marriage and for procreation only. (Hard to believe in this day and age!) So, does that clear things up?
@itakins: Excellent question. Sadly, the Obama-compliant media has allowed Progressive thought to frame the debate in terms of free stuff. The truth is that we live in a mostly free country, but our current president plans to force insurance companies to provide free contraception and abortion services to empowered women. No one is prohibited from actually purchasing these goods and services from drug stores or clinics, but that fact is conveniently overlooked.
Actually, nicomp, I don't see where Obama is advocating free abortion services. Can you show me where Obama has said that?
And as I've mentioned several times over, I have no argument with paying for contraceptive prescriptions, but for whatever reasons, the cost of the darn things continues to climb -- and many women cannot afford them as I just read the cost is now close to $100 monthly for some forms of the pill. Why that should be eludes me.
@lmmartin:
"Each province administers it's own health plan with co-funding from federal income taxes thrown in. It is not parceled out, no caps, no co-pays, each patient deciding on which doctor they want... No access control whatsoever."
Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion, but a simple Google search would set you straight:
"Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that outlaws a parallel private health care system for its citizens."
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=1
This (Canadian) lady wants a drug that is available in the US, but Canadian bureaucrats won't give it to her:
"A Montreal woman with an aggressive form of colorectal cancer says the Quebec health-care system is denying her access to a drug that is keeping her alive."
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.h
"Canada ranks 24th out of 28 countries with 2.3 doctors per 1,000 people for a total of 66,583 doctors; only Turkey, Japan, the United Kingdom and Finland have fewer doctors."
"And as I've mentioned several times over, I have no argument with paying for contraceptive prescriptions,"
We agree on that.
"Actually, nicomp, I don't see where Obama is advocating free abortion services. Can you show me where Obama has said that?"
Here it is:
'The FDA's list of approved methods of contraception includes abortifacients, abortion drugs prescribed to kill life in the womb after conception.'
Ok -just needed to get my facts right! I see the point of your article ok - just needed to make sure I was au fait with situation re your average American.
If all of this is accessible to people ,then why do they care one way or the other what this man thinks ,if they can freely act according to their own convictions etc,?
We may have gone off the point a wee bit here,but isn't that what makes conversations interesting!
Personally,I don't see why others should have to fund such things in the first place.In a perverse sort of way it's almost insulting to the end consumer ,if you think about it - and a ploy to blatantly control the population...'Here, we can't trust you to buy your own contraceptives .....so we'll give them to you free...just make sure you use them.'
I am sure this money could be spent in better ways!
It seems to me with the price differences between Canada and the US ,it would be an ideal opportunity for entrepreneurial Canadians to make a few quid .
I seem to have done a turn around here ,which I haven't ,I was concentrating more on Mr Sartorum's words beforehand .
I Googled what Nicomp seems to be talking about, which basically appears to be another effort by the anti-abortion movement to stir controversy over types of contraceptive pill that anti-abortionists have been trying to mislabel as "abortifacients". These include contraceptives such as Plan B and Ella, which generally can be taken up to 5 days after intercourse. (Women will be a lot more familiar with these details than I am...) The FDA recognizes these as contraceptives, NOT "abortion" pills.
Here's what the extremist right think of women who use contraceptives, and especially those who want insurance to cover it...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/rush-limb
...
Rush Limbaugh called the woman who was denied the right to speak at a controversial contraception hearing a "slut" on Wednesday.
Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown Law School, was supposed to be the Democratic witness at a Congressional hearing about the Obama administration's contraception policy. However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. Fluke eventually spoke to a Democratic hearing, and talked about the need for birth control for both reproductive and broader medical reasons. She mentioned in particular a friend of hers who needed contraception to prevent the growth of cysts.
...
"It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex."
To nicomp Checked out the last link: ah,yes, the Fraser Institute and two from their conservative think tank. Strange, but my own years living in Canada where I received excellent health care, survived cancer, had three pregnancies, have two daughters and four grandchildren all of whom receive excellent care stands for itself. Despite the shortage of doctors, with the use of other practitioners and a high-tech medical-net, even those in the most isolated regions receive care. And despite what this 2006 article states, the per capita cost of medical care in Canada is well below and aggregate cost in the US. Further, life expectancy rates are higher in Canada. I wonder if there's a connection. About the other stories: there's always someone who doesn't get what they feel they should. I could give any number of such stories from here in the US, several from right on my own street, like my unemployed, uninsured next door neighbor who can't get the care he needs for financial reasons. Or one of my clients who can't get a particular drug that is in use in the UK and Canada because it is not FDA approved in the US. BUT, this is not about the medical system, it is about those politicians who believe they have the right to dictate sexual mores to the rest of us.
You did not say Obama's plan wants to include contraceptives that may act as an abortificant; you said Obama's plan will provide free abortions. These are two very different things. An IUD, a popular contraceptive, may be considered by some to be an abortificant because it prevents a fertilized egg from implantation. I suppose if you're a believer in "personhood" beginning at the moment of fertilization, you could see this in that light. Medical science does not agree. So once again, is this not a decision best left up to the user?
At any rate, this grows tedious. Why don't you give your thoughts on the subject matter at hand? Which is not whether or not contraceptives should be covered by health care insurers, but should we allow politicians to decide our most private lives for us? Why are these buffoons prattling on about whether or not contraceptives are "a force for evil" with all that truly needs attention?
Hi itakins: While I always paid for contraceptives under our health care plan, here in the US they (that is the pill, etc, not condoms) are quite expensive -- for some reason I simply can't fathom -- and many women simply can't afford to fork over that kind of money. Of course, these are the very women least able to care for another child. Now, I personally don't see why ALL women should get free contraceptives, but hey, that's not what I'm writing about. But how such a program of providing contraceptives could be seen as a ploy to control the population entirely eludes me. Don't get it! Also, you are confusing health care carriers, i.e. for-profit insurance companies, with your own system of publicly funded health care. Next, there are laws against importing drugs from Canada, though almost all prescription drugs are cheaper there -- and no, they are not subsidized. I was amazed when I first saw the price differences. And lastly, why should we care what Santorum says? Because he wants to be President, and he has an agenda. Would you want a leader in power who has publicly stated he would tackle those groups that think "contraceptives are not okay" and "a license to do things in the sexual realm that are not the way things are supposed to be" ie: within marriage and for procreation? That's why what he has said is important.
Hi LHwritings: yes we're back to the old contraceptives block implantation arguement -- which is what they are supposed to do. I guess it boils down to whether you believe a person is created at the moment of fertilization, that before your heartrate returns to normal, a new citizen has been made. Or, you follow along generally accepted medical science which states a pregnancy begins on implantation which is some ten days later. See my hub "sometimes it's hard to be a woman" for more info on this. Thanks for commenting. Your interest is much appreciated. Lynda
Oh hi again LHwritings: There are raving lunatics everywhere. Who can figure? I'm wondering who is stupid enough to buy into that. A slut for wanting to speak about contraceptives to an all male panel. Gosh -- I guess I'm a slut, too.
Sluts of the world unite! Better a slut than pregnant.
Back to nicomp: "Canada is the only country in the industrialized world that outlaws a parallel private health care system for its citizens."
As I've already stated, each province handles medical care separately from the federal government. In Alberta, for example, there are private health care facilities; in Manitoba not. So you see, as a country Canada does not outlaw private, for profit facilities in health care. EAch province decides how to handle it. But yes, they must provide a public system. OOOH -- the horrors!
But hey, don't let the facts get in your way.
"To nicomp Checked out the last link: ah,yes, the Fraser Institute and two from their conservative think tank."
Attacking the messenger? You're better than that.
"You did not say Obama's plan wants to include contraceptives that may act as an abortificant; you said Obama's plan will provide free abortions. These are two very different things."
I don't have enough hairs left to split with you. This is getting silly.
"However, Darrell Issa, the committee chair at the hearing, prevented her from speaking, while only allowing a series of men to testify about the policy. "
He let some yucky men talk? How intolerant of him. No Democratic committee chair has ever refused anyone an opportunity to testify, of course.
The differences between "Abortion Services" and contraceptives that prevent implantation are only split hairs. Silly indeed.
Sigh. Progressive thought is wonderfully fluid.
As opposed to the remarkably constipated thought of some others?
Sigh again. I showed you the article that explains the FDA categorizations. Feel free to ignore it at your peril, but everyone has the same facts.
Yes, but surely someone picks up the tab ,- isn't it passed on to customers -someone pays.
Oh well the 'ploy' remark really relates to all I have read re Obama's (among others) belief in the necessity to lower populations , in the interest of saving the planet.
The bringing things in from Canada was just a tongue in cheek remark.It used to be a great pastime for some here when contraception was illegal in The Republic - nipping across the border to purchase condoms.It was probably at one point regarded ,in certain quarters here, as more evil than gun running .
Of course it is. But I doubt that the money would be turned over into any public endeavor except increased dividends to shareholders.
Can you show me where President Obama has officially stated his "ploy" is to lower populations? Though common sense and logic do suggest we cannot keep reproducing at our current rate. The planet is finite after all, but even so, I've never heard of the President suggesting such necessity. Can you cite the source?
..
I was perusing the Rachel Maddow blog for something else and came across these items on the contraception issue...
-----
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/07/1
While the Obama administration's recent decision on contraception has caused a stir, it's worth pausing to appreciate the fact that most Roman Catholics already agree with the White House.
A majority of Catholics believe their employers should be required to provide coverage for contraception and birth control, according to a poll released Tuesday from the nonprofit research organization the Public Religion Research Institute.
-----
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/1
Right rallies to defend Va. ultrasound bill
-----
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/20/1
Why would a politician attack pre-natal testing?
-----
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/09/1
Critics of the Obama administration's policy on contraception coverage are eager, if not desperate, to put a faith-based spin on their condemnations. "This is not a women's rights issue," Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said yesterday. "This is a religious liberty issue."
As a political matter, it's easy to understand the motivation for the misleading spin. For one thing, modern birth control is popular, and Obama's detractors don't want to be seen as out of touch. For another, Republicans in particular see value in attacking the president over religion, as part of a larger culture war/electoral strategy.
-----
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/02/1
Ignoring the 'acceptable bounds of civil discourse'
..
Thanks LHWritings. will check them out. I've always enjoyed Rachel Maddow for her intellect and sharp sense of finding the heart of a story. So will get back to you on what I think. But I'm just off a nine hour shift of looking after a disabled woman and have a thirteen hour shift tomorrow with a 94 year old woman, so it will have to wait until I gather my wits. Lynda
ok -just see now you have spoken .....shall be back -I think you do need some rest!
Hi Ita. Just having morning coffee before I dash out the door. Will look for your comment later.
This makes me so angry I don't even know what to say. I just...taking a deep breath. Wow. That guy really is a complete jackass. But, with 52% of the voters being women (most of them enjoying sex, I'm going to have to agree with you) hopefully he won't have a shot in hell.
How publicized is his quote about rape begetting a "gift from god"? Thank god for Trudeau. It's just safer up North.
I've been following this issue via The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It is interesting to note that here in Canada where we have public health and medicine, birth control pills have never been covered by the government like other medication here either. This despite all the health benefits they offer that have nothing to do with birth control, some of which can save lives like lowing chances of getting ovarian cancer. But I have found that all the candidates in the Republican seem to hold the same view on a lot of issues including this one-and they are all men.
I love the photo of "Religion is like Penis." I've never seen the signpost before, but yes, it accurately describes what I think of religion and politics mixing.
Hi arcolton. I have to say this dialogue left me in a state of shock. But then, my life in the US (two years, three months now) has been a series of WTF moments. How publicized was Santorum's quote about pregnancy from rape being a gift from God? Pretty widely -- and to think he has a chance of running for the presidency! Bloody amazing.
Hi Flora. True, contraceptives have never been covered, but then no prescriptions have been covered under any medical program of the three provinces I've lived in. On the other hand, "the pill" is about a quarter of the price in Canada than here -- though I have no idea why. In fact, most pharmacueticals cost more here. And yeah, I loved that sign, too.
Thanks to both of you for commenting. Lynda
I lived in the states for 7 years and was so completely in shock it was 7 years of constant demonstrations and rallies, granted I was in highschool and required things to be angry about (not for the whole 7 years of course), but there was a lot to choose from.
Yes, it does feel that everyone's mad at something or someone. I explored some of the differences in a hub called The 49th Parallel, the view from both sides. Luckily, most people are not extreme, just regular folks like back home but the public arena is extreme. I often wonder about that. With all the real issues needing attention why are we focusing on extremes of ideology? I can visualize the American Armageddon clearly. As the earth opens up and swallows us all the left and right will still be arguing about who holds the true path.
..
Here's more recent material of possible interest on the GOP's War on Sex...
Gary Trudeau's 'Doonesbury" cartoon series this past week featured a bitingly satirical procession of cartoons focused on a hypothetical Texas vaginal-probe anti-abortion law (Texas recently added an ultrasound requirement to other anti-abortion hurdles, but it doesn't explicitly require the vaginal probe -- perhaps coming soon?) ... Some newspapers have refused to carry it. Anyway, it's hilarious and outraging at the same time. Start here and click Next for subsequent installments:
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2012/03/12
The article title is self-explanatory:
Texas Loses Entire Women's Health Program Over Planned Parenthood Law
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/texas-los
You'll also love this:
Arizona Senate Committee Endorses ‘Tell Your Boss Why You’re On The Pill’ Bill
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/14/444111
And in Friday's New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal blogs that some pro-women's rights legislators are "Fighting Absurdity With Absurdity", proposing measures aimed as restricting male sexual freedom:
http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/1
Here's a key quote:
=========
...female Democratic lawmakers in at least six states, infuriated by Republican efforts to restrict the availability of abortions and birth control, have proposed legislation to regulate men’s access to reproductive health services.
In Georgia, a House bill would prohibit men from getting vasectomies because “thousands of children are deprived of birth in this state every year because of the lack of state regulations over vasectomies.” An amendment proposed in the Oklahoma Senate would construe “any action in which a man ejaculates or otherwise deposits semen anywhere but in a woman’s vagina” as “an action against an unborn child.” If Ohio State Sen. Nina Turner gets her way, men seeking prescriptions for erectile-dysfunction will be required to undergo sexual counseling. Along the same lines, Virginia Sen. Janet Howell proposed linking Viagra prescriptions to digital rectal exams.
=========
Maybe a tongue-in-cheek nod at justice ... but today's absurd joke can become tomorrow's nightmare reality. Leading stalwarts of the Teapot GOP seem to be ratcheting up their 13th-century crusade against Demon Sex in every manifestation, so this could backfire. Keep in mind that (failed) Tea Party GOP Senate candidate Christine ("I'm Not a Witch") O'Donnell had distinguished herself by campaigning against masturbation...
This hub made my night, informative with the perfect touch of satire. Santorum, even though he dropped out of the race, makes me shudder. I find it wholly terrifying certain Americans stood behind him and his inane ideologies. Voted up! Shared. Pinned.
Thanks for all the links LHWritings. I never would have believed any country to be so uptight about sexual matters had I not witnessed it myself.
Hi Janikon and thanks for commenting. Yes, it is absolutely mind-blowing that such people find any support at all. What does that tell us?
That someone is distributing some pretty potent Kool-Aid.
It's especially shocking when they go in both directions. Every ad in America shamelessly uses hypersexualised imagery to sell everything from hamburgers to socks, but you can't get the pill? What?
Good to see you are still fighting the good fight and writing relevant hubs that take no prisoners. Amen and then some, llmartin!
Hey janikon. I thought the koolaid was supposed to take us into the final sleep....
How true, ar. colton! Here we are bombarded by unwanted and inappropriate sexual messages at every turn and then some stuffed shirt in a sweater vest tells us we "should" not be sexual beings -- not unless we are prepared to endure unlimited pregnancies. Who can figure?
Hello dear kartika. And where are you these days? Always good to hear from you.
I am still in Fairfield - let's talk very soon! Miss our talks - looks like you have some interesting followers here - I'm having fun checking it out!
Look forward to it. Email me through my link here as my contacts and phone numbers and such have changed. Lynda
Will do! You've really gotten a conversation going here - lots crazy rhetoric flying...I wish these politicians (and the followers who fall for their diversion tactics) would stop trying to take us back to the Middle Ages and abstain from attempting to legislate their way into our bedrooms and women's uteri. It's creepy and inane.
That it is. Also, kind of stupid on their part, don't ya think, considering they do want to get elected and women still have the vote -- so far.
Stupid indeed! Of course, I think they are gambling on getting the Christian right vote, but their math is off.
Tammy Lochmann Level 2 Commenter 3 months ago
Just what I was thinking. The penis picture I've seen on one of my Canadian friend's Facebook post.
Santorum is a total crackpot. I had my tubes tied, so I am safe (maybe...). I enjoyed your satirical commentary, it made my night.
Tammy