Sunday, March 4, 2012

My Take on Contraception

This post is in response to Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding Sandra Fluke. I know I said I would try to stay out of politics, but I just can't help it anymore. Also, when I say "Republicans" I am not talking about ALL Republicans. Lastly, I realize that many people are not against the use of contraception but are against corporations' requirement to provide insurance coverage of contraception. This post highlights my feelings about the people who are not only personally against the use of contraception but also trying to inflict their personal beliefs on other people.

This is how I understand it:

Some Republicans (mostly men) are against the use of contraception. If women don't want to get pregnant they should just stop being "sluts" (Rush's word, not mine), "keep their legs closed" and "just say no."

Many women who use birth control are married women. Are these Republican men suggesting that every woman who has sex without the intent of getting pregnant is a slut - including married women? Including post-menopausal women? Should their own wives "just say no" except for the 3-4 times in their marriage when they are trying to conceive?

Many women who use the contraceptive pills use them not for pregnancy prevention but for other health reasons, such as prevention of ovarian cysts and assistance with endometriosis. I wish these people would stop saying "Go buy a condom, that costs $1." There are much bigger issues here.

Men don't want to "pay" for the pill for women because that's basically like paying for them to have sex. Can't the same be said for all the plans that cover Viagra?

These men do not want to pay for contraception. Are they then willing to pay for the added prenatal care, maternity leave, birth costs and all pediatric costs that could result from this action?

If we want to open this door - of denying health services to individuals or groups because of personal beliefs - then we are coming upon a dark time. A time when a company can deny assistance for any number of issues. I don't like smokers, so I deny medical coverage to those that brought lung-related health issues upon themselves. I don't believe in ADHD so I won't cover the meds to help it. I am in support of 100% homeopathic and holistic approach to healing, so I will cover nothing for my employees.

These men don't support women preventing unwanted pregnancy and don't support a woman's right to end an unwanted pregnancy. But once she has been forced to have an unwanted child - even if she is too young or too poor or too immature to actually have a child, they also don't support assisting her through welfare or other government assistance.

When men think that the sex lives of women is their business, there is a power imbalance. When men use words like "slut" and "prostitute" to refer to women who have sex, that is not courage in the support of your religous beliefs - that is hatred toward women.


  1. Although I understand your feelings at Rush's comments (because they were awful, COMPLETELY awful and disgusting), I don't feel like its fair to say he (or any other commentator, no matter their party associations) represent the whole, or even the majority. "some" is always a safe word since that could mean "two". Unless of course you've spoken to numerous male republicans and received the same opinion (in which case I urge you to find a new bunch of republican males to hang out with).

    (enter Cole)

    Rush did exactly what he intended to do and that is bring more attention to Rush Limbaugh. Unfortunately we have media and politicians that purposefuly pit us against one another for personal/political gain. It's not good for our country to be manipulated the way it has been by the media and the craftiness of immoral men/women.

    Being a conservative male, I do not agree with the government mandating/forcing a religion based hospital or religious employer, to require the use of contraception. Religous freedoms are being taken away and it's important that we maintain the rights that are afforded under the constitution.
    I don't think it is a requirement of the government to provide all of us with contraception or healthcare. If you choose to have sex, go for it, married or not, but anyone who chooses to have sex should not expect anyone else to pay for it.

  2. Hey Remi and Cole! Thank you for your perspective! The more I read the comments sections of political news articles, the more I appreciate the ability to respectfully disagree on topics...key word "respectfully."

    TOTALLY agree that Rush doesn't represent all Republicans. That's why I really wanted to point out in the beginning of my post that this was only my feelings about people who held those same beliefs.

    I also agree that the game of politics is made so that no side really wins - both sides get blasted with negativity and the real goals of either side are lost because the glaring public attention is on the bad.

    I disagree that anyone is forcing anyone to use contraception. And Obama did create the compromise that religious businesses wouldn't be forced to provide contraceptives on their insurance policies, that the insurance companies themselves would provide it, so the religious aspect would be left out. The funny thing is that the Reps didn't like it because it was "not enough" and the Dems didn't like it because it was giving in too much.

    Agreed - it's important to view the Constitution (and not some other text) as the guideline of how the country should be run. However, there is still room for interpretation. For example, I feel that the freedom of religion promised in the First Amendment guarantees you, as a person or a group, the right to worship however you choose. To not be persecuted for your religious beliefs. Other people interpret this as the right to inflict personal religious beliefs on other people. I don't agree with that.

    I maintain my belief that I'd be afraid of a world where someone can deny me medical services based on his or her belief system.