Filed under: Anger management, Good grief | Tags: birth control, catholic church, Christian Values, Rush Limbaugh
I reckon the whole pot of stew stirred up by the Rush Limbaugh/ Sandra Fluke controversy has me more upset than I realized at first.
First of all, I despise it when people resort to name calling. It pisses me off because it’s so cheap and petty and mindless. Anyone can call names. People who call Limbaugh a fat pig or whatever…are resorting to cheap. Limbaugh did it when he called Ms Fluke a slut. I resent all of that entirely and it dismisses the importance of the argument.
That is, that institutions shouldn’t be required to provide insurance coverage for something that they, as an institution, are morally opposed to.
Now, as I see it, the Catholic church was not wanting for their insurance to cover birth control. I get that. However, (as I see it) Ms. Fluke’s argument was that by denying coverage for birth control, hormone replacement therapy (often times medication that was also used as birth control) was being denied to people who needed it for reasons other than birth control, such as polycystic ovarian disease, endometriosis, and similar gynecological disorders. In other words, the insurance provider was second guessing the physician’s decision to use hormone therapy to treat very real and painful diseases because the treatment was also a birth control. thing is, someone with polycystic ovarian disease or endometriosis is pretty unlikely to get pregnant, as these disorders tend to be incompatible with pregnancy.
I do not agree that the Catholic Church should be required to provide contraceptives. (go ahead and throw something). I also do not agree that they should NOT provide medication that could be used as a contraceptive if the woman’s physician determines that she needs it for medical purposes. Does that make sense? The Catholic Church is not a gynecologist, and they should not tell a gynecologist or a woman that she cannot have the medication that will enable her to have a better quality of life. That is between the woman and her physician. If a woman wants contraception, there are many options that do not require a physicians prescription.
I know, A Woman’s Body Is Her Own…I get that. Let me ask you this, how many insurance companies cover the cost of abortions? As far as I know, most of the time if a woman wants one, she pays for it out-of-pocket. I honestly believe that contraception should also be paid for out-of-pocket. It is VOLUNTARY. Having sex is (or it should be) VOLUNTARY. Oral contraceptives are not the only option for contraception. If the man says “I don’t like the way condoms feel” and refuses to use them, then he is an asshole and the woman shouldn’t be having sex with him. If the woman has an uncomfortable reaction to contraceptive jellies or foams (which I totally understand, as I react to them), and the man refuses condoms…ok I know what some of you are thinking. That I am heartless and do not understand and “what about a woman’s sexual agency” and all that.
Thing is, I get it more than you think. I just don’t believe that any institution should be required by law to pay for something that is, for the recipient, A VOLUNTARY and not medically necessary service or product.
now, I do not agree with the Catholic Church on the birth control issue. I do not agree with the idea that women are vessels and should have as many babies as they can and have humongous families, IF THEY DON’T WANT TO. If they do want to, more power to them as long as they can pay for it. BUT I do believe the Catholic Church has a right to this. If you don’t agree with them, don’t go to a Catholic University and expect student insurance to cover birth control. Don’t work for a Catholic institution. If that’s the institution that gives you a scholarship, or that’s the place that hires you, go into it with the understanding that there are limitations to what the insurance will cover.
Y’know, my health insurance won’t cover anything involving teeth. If my son gets 4 teeth knocked out by a soccer ball, too bad. Any dental work has to be paid out of pocket. If he is in a car accident and hits a telephone pole and his face hits the steering wheel, insurance will cover the broken nose and cheekbone, but not the broken teeth and subsequent root canals. I knew this going into it. I am not happy about it, but that’s the way it is. I can lobby with the owners of the company about our insurance coverage, I can protest and make a lot of noise and *maybe* dental coverage will be added, but it won’t be free. I have to make a choice.
Likewise anyone going to work or school at a Catholic institution has to make a choice about birth control. Maybe if they make enough noise, the business about trusting a physician and being able to take medication (that is also used as birth control) for gynecological diseases will be resolved. That would be a very good change.
Ok, now…Here’s where I get REALLY pissed off. It’s the double standard. Women are supposed to be chaste, innocent and virginal. If they choose to be sexually active then they are Sluts. Men are supposed to be Experienced and if they are sexually active outside of marriage they they get the “nudge nudge, wink wink”. Only, with whom are they supposed to be sexually active,if women are supposed to be chaste and virginal?
In a perfect world according to Christian Values (bear with me here, you all know I am Christian), BOTH MEN AND WOMEN would remain chaste and virginal until marriage. There should exist NO DOUBLE STANDARD. However, as I said in a previous post, I know that not everyone in this country is Christian. HOWEVER, there should be NO DOUBLE STANDARD there, either. If men can have sex, so should women, without condemnation.
But (I know, there are 2 points in this post and probably should be written separately) the stupid double standard of sexual behavior MUST STOP. If men are going to call women sluts for being sexually active, then MEN must STOP HAVING SEX,TOO. That is, sex outside of marriage. If men aren’t willing to do that, then it MUST be acceptable for women to behave the same way. After all, with whom are those men going to have sex with, anyway? Each other? But that’s a whole ‘nother topic.
**edited to add: ” I honestly believe that contraception should also be paid for out-of-pocket. It is VOLUNTARY. Having sex is (or it should be) VOLUNTARY” I meant to say IF the insurance company will not pay for contraceptives on moral grounds (due to the beliefs of the company providing the insurance)…it should not be required to, and the individual should voluntarily pay for them. If there is no moral obligation against contraceptives, then by all means, let the insurance company pay for it! It would be far cheaper to pay for contraceptives than for babies being born. In that case, I think the companies ought to pay for them entirely, rather than with the copay….sorry for any confusion. I am not opposed to insurance paying for contraceptives, only for companies who are morally opposed to them being forced to provide them.