Could the 'male pill' alter the dynamic of the contraception mandate?

[applegrove]

Could the 'male pill' alter the dynamic of the contraception mandate?

by Dante Atkins at the Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/14/1329125/-Could-the-male-pill-alter-the-dynamic-of-the-contraception-debate

"SNIP......................


Vasalgel, though, is not really equivalent to the daily pill that so many women rely on for contraception. Rather, it's more like a male version of an IUD. A polymer compound is injected directly into the vas deferens, which blocks it and prevents sperm cells from moving up and out the tube. The injection is effective for several years. If a man wishes to reverse the effects, it simply requires a second injection to flush out the polymer. No hormones are involved; it's purely mechanical, and elegantly simple.

It seems a far superior method when compared to the hormonal regulation that many women depend on for contraception: Why not block sperm at the source rather than disrupt a woman's reproductive cycle in order to prevent her hormones from being effective? it's a purely mechanical and elegantly simple solution. The political and social ramifications, however, could be a different story.

...........

This mandate, of course, has been controversial. The religious and cultural impulse to control female sexuality has combined forces with the selfish ethos of libertarianism to oppose the mandate and to tell women that if they want contraception, they should have to pay for it on their own. But if a simple, inexpensive and easily reversible procedure for men—as Vasalgel purports to be—ever did come onto the market, this dynamic could shift, and put conservative opposition to birth control in a bind.

In this situation, birth control could very easily become equally the responsibility of men and women. And while the types like Rick Santorum, who oppose all forms of birth control on religious and moral grounds, would get the opportunity to remain internally consistent, it would be interesting to see how other conservative and libertarian groups would react if the contraceptive mandate came to cover the "male IUD" in addition to the forms of birth control used in women's bodies. While the plaintiffs in cases like Hobby Lobby could remain internally consistent by only opposing specific forms of birth control they consider to be abortifacients, less selective groups would suddenly find themselves in a position of either telling men what they can do with their own bodies, or admitting their own biases: that their efforts at limiting access to birth control were really all about denying and controlling the ability of women to govern their own sexuality.



......................SNIP"

[lumberjack_jeff]

1. Mandated coverage for male contraceptives would require a major rewrite of the law. n/t

[moriah]

4. Not really. And it's already discriminatory that it won't cover vasectomy, but will cover tubals.

I'm all for male contraception.

[SocratesInSpirit]

2. Ha! Birth control would become a sacrament for these hypocrites

Conservatives would easily find a way to justify insurance coverage for male birth control, while still denying women. They always do.

[SomethingFishy]

3. One of the best things about getting old is

no more worrying about contraception

[brer cat]

5. +1 nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. Yay menopause!

No more disabling horrendous cramps 13 times a year. Nonfunctional for 2 to 4 days each of those lunar months.

I wish we had paid sick leave for women with disabling periods and menstrual huts to rest in. But no, we are supposed to pretend we are macho men who never get sick. Conservatives see illness or disability or poverty as a moral failing. That's what I get for thinking.....