Reply turned post, I’ve heard this song before style

Pretty soon I may actually come up with an original post, and stop doing only replies-turned-posts. I have recently added more sites to my feeder. I deleted some, too, so that may be a moot point. I also just finished classes and S’s birthday party, and am looking forward to a week “off”. I have a lot planned for this week, including a trip to a Medical Students for Choice convention on Friday. I also have to catch up on a lot of business I let slide until this week off. Not to mention, I have a written final in Osteopathic Principles and Practice, and a cumulative practical, on Tuesday after spring break. That includes license and car registration renewals, quizzes for my public health class, plans for my research project, my FAFSA, exercising and gardening…and catching up on hundreds of updates in my blog feeder. This catching up process explains a lot of replies. Some turn into posts. I like doing these because it shares other sites with people who have similar interests, and at least half of my ranting occurs on other sites.

So, this was a reply on a post about the resistance to the increased Medicaid contraception coverage in the stimulus package on RH Reality Check. I am not sure why this was being discussed now, since it happened in January, even though I welcome this kind of an article anytime. I swear, even thought I am backlogged, the post on RH Reality Check and the original article from FAIR were both published yesterday. It may be timely, since this provision as supposed to be added to the budget that just got passed.

Anyway, the reply:

Not only is the corporate media guilty of not challenging talking points or critical attacks by politicians, but this case was even more egregious. The mainstream media, even liberal sources, tend to treat women’s reproductive health, especially contraception and abortion, as a political third rail. It’s automatically “controversial”, so everyone’s outrageous statements are accepted under the umbrella of controversy.

By including women who would qualify for Medicaid if they got pregnant to Medicaid’s contraception program, women would have more control over their reproductive autonomy, not less.

It didn’t even matter that this provision would PREVENT abortions, not increase them, so it could not fund the nonexistent “abortion industry”. It most certainly would not impose them on pregnant citizens like the Chinese government.

I really wonder why Rep. Boehner and his ilk are opposed to contraception if they are supposedly interested in decreasing abortions. They need to add “anti contraception” to their platform. I would be interested in seeing the reaction to that.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

One response to “Reply turned post, I’ve heard this song before style

  1. TVille

    Those opposed to contraception aren’t *truly* interested in reducing abortions, IMO. They would prefer to remind women that they (women) are at the mercy of a few (mostly male) politicians (of relatively sound financial means), and therefore must behave in a manner that said politicians find acceptable.

    For instance, women should not have sex unless they are married. If they are married and having sex, they should expect to become pregnant, and should therefore plan accordingly. They should make sure that their insurance covers maternity care well in advance, and they should make sure that they are aware of the cost of daycare, because the above politicians would like to remind women that children are the responsibility of women, and the government does not like helping.

    If they are not married and are having sex, said sex is assumed to be consensual and if a pregnancy results, well…the women should have known the potential result of sex is pregnancy and therefore should not expect the politicians to condone terminating the pregnancy, because that is a Sin and politicians can’t support Sin.

    Said politicians would prefer that women learn that sex can equal pregnancy from someplace other than America’s public schools because the politicians don’t want to teach teenage girls how to have sex; what would people think? Too bad that there’s nowhere else for girls to go to learn that sex sometimes causes babies; the girls are expected to know anyway, and not have sex until they are married.

    As for preventing pregnancies, well, these politicians certainly don’t support taking the pill off the market, or banning the sale of condoms, but please understand, the financial burden of procuring contraception is, again, the woman’s responsibility. And even if women might need to look a little harder to find a pharmacist that will dispense birth control pills, well, that’s okay, because pharmacists certainly shouldn’t have to dispense medication they find objectionable. And besides, if the woman was really serious about remaining child free, perhaps this will offer her the opportunity to reconsider her sexual activity, and if it doesn’t, and she has to drive a few miles to find a pharmacist to dispense her medication, well, that just can’t be helped.

    These anti-choice, anti-contraception politicians aren’t interested for two seconds in doing what is best for the country, or for women. IMO they are interested in punishing women for daring to assert sexual independence, and for having the audacity to believe that they are entitled to control their reproduction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s