General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo NOT tell me there is no war on women after reading this...
Even as a national debate rages over contraception insurance, tens of thousands of low-income women and teenagers across the United States have lost access to subsidized birth control as states slash and restructure family planning funds.
Montana and New Jersey have eliminated altogether their state family planning programs. New Hampshire cut its funding by 57 percent and five other states made more modest program trims.
But the biggest impact, by far, has been in Texas.
State lawmakers last fall cut family-planning funds by two-thirds, or nearly $74 million over two years. Within months, half the state-supported family planning clinics in Texas had closed.
The state network, which once provided 220,000 women a year free and low-cost birth control, cervical cancer tests and diabetes screenings, will now serve just 40,000 to 60,000, officials said.
http://news.yahoo.com/states-slash-birth-control-subsidies-federal-debate-rages-153703549.html
Read the entire thing. It pretty well covers how the religious right works to control women and what they do with their bodies. It's disgusting.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)That is downside of depending on the federal/local government. When there are budget problems or when republicans are in charge this type of funding will dry up.
All funding victories are potentially temporary.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)of anything strikes me as odd.
You must be one of those fiscally conservative "Democrats".
dkf
(37,305 posts)If Obama can stipulate birth control be in every plan what stops Romney etal from doing the opposite?
Is it possible we will able to control the Presidency from here to eternity? Or all these governorships?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)could be what you're looking for there.
That's certainly how it's done up here in Canada, for example.
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/defunding.shtml
By Joyce Arthur
Pro-Choice Press, Autumn/Winter 2003
The Canadian anti-choice movement has been trying for over a decade to have abortion defunded in Canada. Currently, all abortions in Canada are funded as a "medically required" service under the Canada Health Act, whether they are performed in hospitals or clinics (although four provinces are still flouting the law by refusing to fully fund abortions in clinics).
The anti-choice movement uses five main arguments against the funding of abortion.[1] Let's examine each of them in turn.
People who actually believe that women have rights might find some of that article instructive. Women (and people generally) do have more extensive and better protected rights in Canada than in the US overall, but there are arguments there that are certainly worth considering for local use.
This is International Women's Day, after all. A good day for learning about how things are done in other places.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I've never understood how you have to pay to get things you have a right to.
And how can you have a right to get birth control but not have a right to have a roof over your head?
If you have a right to birth control don't you then have a right to a doctor since they need to provide the Rx?
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Please don't play the fool.
You have a right to get birth control in a situation in which other basic health care services are provided free of charge, without discrimination on the basis of sex, for example.
In Canada, most provinces do not cover prescription drugs under the health care plan. Low-income people have prescription drug coverage through social services plans. They cover contraception. Most working people have supplemental insurance plans through their employer. They cover contraception. If contraception were not covered in either situation, it would be a violation of provincial human rights codes that prohibit discrimination in the public and private sectors. Contraception is basic health care for women. Refusing to provide it on the same basis as other basic health care is discrimination on the basis of sex.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)To give up and say let's the poor starve because tomorrow a RepubliCON will come along and wipe out all food assistance is the same as saying I'm not going to work because tomorrow the job might be defunct.
The job market is full of jobs that are no longer needed, think wet-nurse and travel agent. IT and computer jobs use to mean big bucks but now those jobs are barely paying a middle-class income. To give up and not work because someday that job might go away or pay substantially less is a certain path to poverty. To give up on funding much needed programs for the working class because tomorrow the RepubliCONS will crash the economy and take away funding is a certain path to a feudal society.
Do you see the corporations giving up? They know their free ride will eventually end but they are fighting for every last subsidy and dime they can squeeze out of our tax dollars. They don't give up and they get nice fat welfare checks - from GE paying zero taxes but still getting rebates, to hidden money off-shore, to not making oil corporations pay their billions in pumping fees for use of our federal land, to 15 to 20% less taxes on those who live off their parents money. The uber rich take whatever they can and keep fighting for more welfare. Why should the working class give up?
dkf
(37,305 posts)Medical costs for retirees are going to eat up the entire budget.
As long as they don't touch Medicare this is pretty inevitable.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)This is obvious, when you look at how healthcare is implemented around the world.
dkf
(37,305 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,347 posts)http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-healthcare-economic-indices/en/us/?indexId=sp-healthcare-economic-indices
S&P Healthcare Economic Medicare Index : Dec 2009: 132.5; Dec 2011: 138.7 (+4.7%)
S&P Healthcare Economic Commercial Index : Dec 2009: 154.8; Dec 2011: 178.3 (15.2%)
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)No, wait, let me guess: you're on Medicare, or will qualify soon, right? 
dkf
(37,305 posts)I'm not getting Medicare nor am I getting access to contraception from the government. I consider myself a third party as I am eons away from getting a benefit either way.
tpsbmam
(3,927 posts)Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, food stamps and so many other programs wouldn't exist were the don't even try, don't rely on it because it might be taken away mindset to prevail!
All of these programs were hard fought and have been the target of ReTHUGS since they've been in existence. Yet they survive and they have been the crux of health care in the US for poor Americans, people with disabilities & senior citizens. And this has been true for generations now. So, should we have nixed these from the outset because some assholes may come along in the future and take them away.
It's not that they haven't been adjusted. It's not that they'll all lose some of their strength in the hands of ReTHUGS.....and some Democrats. They have and they will remain hard fought programs, with the corporatocracy constantly trying to eat away from the programs and trying to privatize them.
So do we just give up, tell people not to fight for them, tell people not to rely on them as they have been able to for generations, give in to this inane economic agenda straight out of Milton Friedman's and worldwide convervatives' playbooks?
Of course not.
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)More children means state-funding for vaccinations, head-start (Repugs hate that program), WIC. The wealthiest countries are those with the lowest birth rates.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)not knowing what to say.
Truckloads of unplanned, unwanted kids; girls' lives derailed; more ignorance, more poverty; more strain on the economy AND on the PLANET's resources.
stop these fucking fetus fetishists NOW!!!!
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)China has 2 Bn people, and cheap, cheap labor that US economist salivate over. What better way to get that cheap, cheap labor than to breed more humans. It's revolting.
Ilsa
(61,696 posts)To vax the kids at public vax events right before school begins in the fall. The county health departments will have to vax most of them.
Tennessee Gal
(6,160 posts)"Love all the babies til they're born."
A friend once made up a country song about the Republican stance on abortion vs. social programs helping poor children with that line in it.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)poor population for the workforce. imho
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)so they can make dead soldiers."
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
It's all about control of resources. Carlin should be remembered as a national treasure for his social commentary.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Mr. Carlin was so right. That one sentence describes many of their views.
Initech
(100,097 posts)
siligut
(12,272 posts)We see it in crowded cities already.
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)
intheflow
(28,494 posts)They've been inculcated into the cult.
hamsterjill
(15,223 posts)I don't understand how any woman could vote for Republican!
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Patriarchy is imaginary! Damn their ignorant lies!
Lionessa
(3,894 posts)commenting on.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)If something else was cut instead of birth control, the affected group would say it was a war on them. If there is no money, what do you expect the state to do? Raise taxes?
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)These people have sang the mantra to cut taxes and cut taxes some more. They've done that and cut them even more on the wealthy. With less tax revenue, they cut services. The first ones they cut are the ones they don't like...family planning which is women's contraception.
If you read the entire article, you would see that they are not just cutting into birth control, but also other medical services. Also, their reasons are not just about money. They are also on their moral high horse about what they think women should be allowed despite losing other services in the process.
At the end of the article a jackass says, "We're just doing what we think is best," said Joe Pojman, executive director of Texas Alliance for Life, which opposes abortion.
They are making medical decisions for women. They are intefering in a woman's right to determine how she bests takes care of her own body as if they know best. Would you want the government to come into the exam room with you and your doctor and decide that you are too stupid to make your own decisions?
I'm sorry, but this is a war on women's health and it's a war on my right to make a decision about my body and what's best for it. These people need to get the hell out.
If they want money so damn bad, tax the wealthy and leave us alone to make our medical choices.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Even if you were somehow able to do it, there would be dozens of other constituencies competing for the additional revenue. Subsidized birth control would lose in that fight.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)to raise taxes on the wealthy. That's the class they protect the most. What's even worse, is that they make no attempt to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. It means considerably less revenue for these states. Rather than raise the taxes, they would prefer to cut these needed services for women and for the poor first. That's been their M.O. all along.
As I said earlier, this is more than just birth control. This is about women's rights and the RW continues to bang the war drums against them.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Since when? It might be good policy if the government can afford it, but it is not a right.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)The military, the VA, Medicaid, etc.
Are you okay with the government paying for Viagra? Vasectomies?
Besides contraceptives does far more for women's health than prevent pregnancy.
This whole thing is about women's health and our right to make decisions about it. Preventing access to it has a direct impact on our health. The government needs to get out of the way of our health care.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Just because a government, be it a state government or the federal government, has provided those things in the past does not make it a right. If the government doesn't have the money, then some programs get cut. I don't see subsidized birth control (or any of those other things you mentioned) as a sacred cow that gets an automatic pass.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)That is not what this is. It is about women's health care. Women need contraception. It is essential to their health whether it's preventing pregnancy, ovarian cysts, endometriosis and other health problems that women need contraception for.
You act like we have a choice in contraception. We don't. Women need it for health reasons. Don't minimize it as if it's an option. It's not.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)You Rock! 
Rhiannon12866
(205,839 posts)
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Birth control means you're taking action only because you don't want to get pregnant. The vast majority of birth control pills are prescribed for that reason.
We'll just have to disagree about whether it's an option.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Women do not take birth control on a whim as if it's a choice.
For the vast majority of women they take contraceptives because they cannot get pregnant because they financially cannot afford a baby, for medical reasons, or they already have children. They take contraceptives to control menses, endometriosis, ovarian cysts and other medical reasons. Young girls who began their menses early have been placed because of the pain and out-of-control bleeding.
This is not about choice. THis is about woman's health care and our rights to make decisions about it with our doctor. Who are you to come in to an exam room and make decisions about what we need or do not need?
These are medical decisions. Period.
HughBeaumont
(24,461 posts)Count my mother, my wife, her friend and her friend's sister as women who take BC for medical reasons. That's four in my immediate area . . . there are literally millions more.
ALL health is a human right. How this country cannot bring itself to see it that way is nothing short of a CRIME.
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)That idea is used so often in discussing healthcare, and primarily in discussing women's health care.
We ALL "pay for" A LOT of things for other people; we ALL get a lot of things paid for, in part, by other people, too.
"Why should I have to pay for YOU?" the question goes. "Because I pay for YOU" is the answer. That goes for police, fire dept., schools, roads, all public services.
In cases where people are too poor, elderly, disabled, etc. that they can't pay in, don't think it's a big savings NOT to help. Public health matters to everyone. Diseases spread, as do fires. Uneducated citizens affect everyone, as does crime associated with poverty.
So if birth control isn't funded because people object to spending money on it, get ready to spend it instead for prenatal care, 13 years of school, and God knows what social services if an unplanned pregnancy happens for a woman too young, poor, and/or unhealthy to have been prepared for parenthood.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)but other pills to increase the need for BC is a god-given right. misogynists need to step out of the debate because they have no rational arguments.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the religiously insane do not have a problem with viagra.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I've posted that several times already in this thread.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)There's plenty of money for war. There's plenty of money to give the uber rich MORE tax breaks. There's plenty of money for bailing out banks. There's plenty of money for tax cuts to corporations who ship jobs to China. There's plenty of money for drug testing unemployed people.
Just not enough money to take care of women's health issues.
It's not simply about the pill. It's about pap smears, breast exams and pre-natal care.
Yes, Health care is a right.
You may think you can have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you have no health or are dead from some easily cured disease, but I don't.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Rights can be given or taken away at any time. But state subsidized birth control is just the intelligent thing to do, as you're decreasing the number of children born into poverty, and decreasing any state assistance that would be given to larger poor families. The amount spent on tax credits, food stamps, welfare checks, school lunch programs, etc. will be increased by cutting access to birth control and would likely far outpace any expenditure on birth control. Not to mention birth control pills have medical applications beyond merely preventing pregnancy that are important to women.
saras
(6,670 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)either you pay for birth control, or you pay for unwanted children. that is the reality of the choices, and birth control is less expensive.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)
JHB
(37,161 posts)It doesn't really matter if it's going to happen "in this political environment". This isn't just about right now, this is also about long-term pushback against pernicious ideologues.
roody
(10,849 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Why should something important to women be the first thing on the chopping block? Not to mention less access to birth control for low income folks means more unwanted pregnancies, and thus more government assistance to help care for those poor children.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)Don't tell me wars, military spending or tax cuts for the rich. Those are federal matters and this is a state issue.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)so you have a problem with that cost?
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Obviously, without having intimate knowledge of a specific state's budget I can't answer specifics.
But, you're avoiding the point I was trying to make that logically, cutting birth control for women will cost the state money. You are cutting something that is a positive for 50% of the population and achieving absolutely no real savings. In fact, it'll likely be negative savings.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)so let's not waste time with that. I do agree with you that funding birth control could potentially reduce costs to the state of providing for children borne by couples that are financially unable to care for them. I would say that those programs are also being cut.
As dkf pointed out earlier in this thread, this the downside of relying on government funding - it's not guaranteed. If you can't afford or don't want to use the pill, there are other means of preventing pregnancy.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)This is not just about preventing pregnancy. This is women's health. Contraception is used for more than just preventing pregnancy. Many women rely on goverment funding for their health care and this is a part of that.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I'll agree there may be situations where a woman has an abnormal medical condition that requires her to take the pill for treatment. I'll also agree that such a situation falls within the realm of health care. IMO, those situations are very much the exception.
I do not agree that just wanting to avoid pregnancy is in and of itself a health care issue.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Ask women and their doctors.
on edit: But that would mean going into the exam room and inserting yourself in a woman's medical decision with her doctor.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)For example, a woman might not want to become pregnant because she's not emotionally or financially ready to raise a child. She might not be comfortable enough with her partner as a father or may be unsure if the relationship will work out in the long term. Those situations involve choices and states should not have to pay for the birth control.
A woman who would be at abnormal risk if she became pregnant is a different situation. I would consider that a health issue that could fall within the state's mandate.
The basic problem I see on this thread is a refusal to recognize that many states are nearly broke and can only fund the most pressing needs. Public assistance (poor families, the elderly, etc.), drug abuse programs, mental health, education, essential services (fire, police, etc.), infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) and mass transit are also high priorities that states have to balance. That reality is only going to get worse and you need to accept it.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)You are talking about involving yourself with medical decisions a woman makes. No matter her reasons, this is her health and her health care. You cannot separate that from how she cares for her reproductive health. I'm not sure why you think the goverment has a right to make medical decisions for women.
As has been said repeatedly in this thread, providing contraception to women so they can avoid pregnancy does save money. It means less of a burden on society through the health problems from a pregnancy, supporting a child of a poor family, and so on.
It does get worse if women cannot have some say over their health care.
Besides, if you were so fired up about this issue, you would say the same thing in regards to vasectomies. The government shouldn't cover those. What about Viagra and othe drugs like it?
As I have said more than once...raising taxes on the wealthy can solve a lot of these problems. The RW refuses and would rather cut these essential services. That includes those on your list as well.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I don't support public funding for Viagra or vasectomies either.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)People around here are against the government or bureaucrats inserting themselves in people's private medical decisions. Using contraceptives (no matter the reasoning) is a medical decision. Your opinion (which is the same as the religious right's opinion regarding this) is out of step with...well pretty much majority of the country. They recognize the difference between medical and nonmedical. Oral contraception is medical and belongs strictly to the patient and her doctor. It's not yours and not the goverment's place to get in the middle of that. Period.
As far as bridges, roads, and all that. There are ways to solve those problems without stripping women of their health care. It's called raising taxes.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)They are opposed to artifical means of contraception as a moral issue regardless of who pays for it. I have no problem with contraception - my wife and I did not want to have children, so she took the pill for many years. I didn't think the government should have paid for it under those circumstances and I haven't changed my opinion.
You're basically saying don't cut my issues; just raise taxes if there isn't enough money to fund other priorities. The real world doesn't work that way - governments have to deal with political reality. Tax increases are not going to happen in the current economy and political environment. You can pretend it's an option if you want to kid yourself, but state legislators and governors don't have that luxury.
We're not going to agree about this one, but it was nice discussing it with you.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)healthcare is healthcare. if viagra is covered by insurance, then BC should be covered also. and women should not have to pay extra for coverage from INSURANCE COMPANIES. unless you are an insurance company executive who's bonus depends on denying coverage to women, i don't get your point.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The OP is about state funding for family planning and that states have cut funding for birth control. Insurance is a completely different issue that belongs in a different thread.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)These are women's health issues.
If you had read the entire article, you would know that they are not doing it just because of funding. They are doing it because they want to impose their morals on women...hence wipe out those programs that directly impact their health. Not just contraception, but also pap smears, breast exams and so on.
Insurance companies are directly involved in running these state health care programs. John Deere and Blue Cross run TN's. They are in it up to their eyeballs.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)I don't know Tennessee. Deere and Blue Cross most likely administer TN's plan. TN funds it and decides what is covered and what isn't.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Women will tell you this is their life...not an issue.
Governments have seen fit to provide women with contraception WITHOUT the need to insert itself in a medical exam room. You are advocating the government to do just that.
The RW in this country have protected the wealthy from paying their fair share that it has cost this country dearly. They have protected Wallstreet, the banks, and the wealthy. The poor and the middle class can only hold this burden for so long.
Rather than make the wealthy pay their fair share (just like everyone else) they go after the poor and the women of this country. They want to regulate their private lives and insert themselves in the medical decisions women make by determining if they should or should not have access to contraception.
Raising taxes for the wealthy is an option. The top 10% wealthiest in this country have 80% of the wealth. They pay the least taxes. This is what the repubs have been doing all this time. Where have you been?
I would start here...
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/watch-online/
There is a very long list to choose from. You may not like what you see and may have to evaluate your opinions. I blame a lot of the RW for our current state, but the Dems have got some blame as well. Corporations have inserted themselves in the process and have damaged this country. Go watch some of these pertaining to our government, the wealthy, and Wall Street. You'll find that reality is far more jarring than your perception.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Most medical conditions covered could be eliminated by making better choices. Cancer from smoking, heart attacks from eating burgers every day, a broken foot from kicking puppies, lifting too much weight in a moment of macho pride... hell, actually having a baby is covered making it seem extra short sighted to eliminate birth control, going back to my main argument that cutting birth control coverage doesn't save money :-P
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Eliminating birth control doesn't seem to make sense from a fiscal or health perspective, and you haven't made an argument as to why birth control coverage in insurance plans should be the first thing to go. I'm fully aware of the financial difficulties of many states, but if they're going offer health plans to their employees, there's no financial reason to leave out birth control. It saves them money. The only reason not to consider birth control as part of a health plan is a draconian attitude about reproductive health and women.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)And have you perfected a method for determining whether a woman is at "abnormal risk"?
What about a woman who is at "normal risk" who suffers a serious complication in late pregnancy, and dies? Or is left with permanent serious brain damage. Or a woman who develops gestational diabetes that progresses to diabetes, with the almost inevitable shortened lifespan (and expense and health problems) associated with it? Do you know anything about the health risks associated with pregnancy?
ALL women are at risk of virtually every possible health risk associated with pregnancy. And it's really high time that everybody understood that, and stopped claiming otherwise as an argument against funding contraception on the same basis as any other preventive health care service.
Budget problems are one thing. Applying discriminatory criteria in dealing with them -- denying women essential preventive health care -- is another.
haele
(12,667 posts)They do this because:
1) Non-prescription BC failure rates are extremely high – OTC Condoms and sponges have a 15% failure rate, Rhythm method has around a 25% failure rate. “Pulling out” has around a 27% failure, and amazingly enough, OTC spermicidal methods can be worse at around 30% failure. After childbirth “Lactation” method only works until a woman starts having her period again.
2) Unprotected sex with one’s husband or long-term significant other of the opposite gender has an 85% failure rate.
The problem one runs into when discussing birth control is that too many arguments are focused on the premise that the only women who pursue birth control are young or single dingbats and not in stable, long-term partnership/relationships – or - that sex only happens between committed partners when they “are ready” to procreate. Apparently, committed partners who are still “fertile” don’t otherwise have sex once they commit.
Everyone else apparently only uses when they want to either get their rocks of or as part of “courtship” play between people of loose morals - totally ignoring the emotional well-being, comfort, and bonding that sex brings to a committed relationship .
The simplistic social view currently prevalent in America that sex is either for single adult play-time, or to make babies once a partner is picked. Whore, meet Madonna.
If access to birth control as part of a healthy family, especially amongst the poorer families, is not considered an socio-economic issue as well as a community resources issue, a community ends up spending far more on policing and community services to stressed out and/or failing families due to increasingly dysfunctional domestic dynamics brought on by a marital unit’s attempts to coordinate their offspring with their efforts to maintain economic stability. Too many children and the many health expenses due to pregnancy and birth, and a struggling young family will become financially distressed and fracture within three/four years of a marriage. We just had a baby in the family - with great insurance through my employer, it cost us $3K over the entire pregnancy and birth. Without insurance, or with minimum insurance, or charity aid, it can cost the average couple up over $10K out of pocket - just because it was a holiday or "sweetheart" had a hard day at work and there was a bit of comfort sex...
So, yes – Birth Control is just as important as any other major public health concern to a community well-being.
The ability for a family to control the size it will be sustainable at should not be a matter of "can we afford the doctor's visits every year to get the prescription for reliable birth control" - or would that $20 a month be the difference between risking an unplanned, expensive pregnancy or being able to drive to work the last week of each month.
It’s not simply just a matter of “women too stupid to just say no” – which, frankly, is as much the conservative view towards birth control as “babies are God’s little gift…”
Haele
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)An unwanted pregnancy, to a woman who's too poor, unhealthy, young, etc. to become a parent, costs much more for that child's social services, school, food programs and ALL the costs you mentioned above.
iverglas
(38,549 posts)Pregnancy carries a myriad of health risks, both physical and psychological. Death is just the most extreme of them.
Women often choose to assume those risks because they want to have a child. That's their choice. People choose to assume many health risks, for many reasons.
Some people choose not to have flu shots. But avoiding the flu is a health issue, and health insurance plans commonly cover flu shots, even if not everyone chooses to have them, and even though few people die or suffer serious health problems if they catch flu.
There's no real difference between contraception and flu shots.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Pregnancy leaves a woman hospitalized, and has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. This combined with the fact that a good sex life has many positive health benefits beyond being just for pro-creation (and lack of sex can be detrimental to health), and it seems like an important health care issue to me.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I'm going to look into some stuff while I'm here in the library, so I'll come up with a partial list of other conditions birth control is commonly used for. But just from casual talk with some women I've known, it seems fairly common to use birth control for other reasons (like fighting severe acne for example).
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Some quick googling and reading tells me that Contraceptives help protect against ovarian cancer and osteoporosis, are used for obtaining healthy skin, regulating the menstrual cycle for women that have heavy bleeding issues, severe cramps, anemia, mood swings, and so on. They are used to prevent(or treat?) PID, and protect against ovarian cysts. Pregnancy itself can be dangerous for some women, like women who are diabetics.
So it seems there are many good reasons why birth control should be considered an important health care item.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)isn't really relevant and it's wrong:
The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%). Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.
SOURCE
This issue isn't about opinions, it's about facts and women's health care.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)I knew it wasn't an insignificant amount of women, but didn't realize it was such a high percentage 
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Then you have to increase funding for law enforcement, another heavy expenditure. Since you're interested in practical eventualities, then for all practical intents people will not be likely to make choices such as abstinence or condom use (a male-centric form of birth control that still costs money). People in poor conditions are less likely to have received decent education or be particularly forward thinking when juggling multiple jobs and trying not to starve.
The conservative type of state that refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy, eliminates woman specific health care coverage from plans, and eliminates the social safety net is also likely to eliminate adequate sex education, replacing such classes with abstinence programs which are shown to be very ineffective. Children in these poor areas are also much less likely to have a parent at home to teach them about the birds and the bees, assuming that parent is even educated in reproductive health themselves.
Basically, all you're accomplishing is increasing poverty which in turn will lead to an increase in crime, especially if the children aren't cared for as will likely be the case. It's a big reason conservative debt control policies rarely work well, because they create feedback loops that leave the majority of the population worse off, not just those targeted by spending cuts.
Saving Hawaii
(441 posts)Dokkie
(1,688 posts)
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)This is what blew me away yesterday: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002398696
It's usually something new every day.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do they not see the long term - it will cost them more when there are more people.
tledford
(917 posts)is what I'm more and more coming to believe is the root of all this.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)pathetic, but true :thumsup:
sillaG
(2 posts)I don’t live in America. I live in a country which did not undergo a sexual revolution, and is sexually social conservative. However, here birth control pills are available over the counter at the pharmacy for $5 a package. In America, one has to go to a doctor and get a prescription from a doctor who acts as a kind of gate-keeper and could be morally opposed to contraception. Then, one has to pay a lot more ($30/month) for pills if they are not insured. At least, when I lived there, this was the case. The whole process seems unnecessarily difficult. Imagine a college student at a religious institution whose boyfriend wanted to have sex. I find it ridiculous that it would be so much easier for someone to deal with that situation in this socially conservative country than in the United States. What an important function Planned Parenthood has played in the States (until now).