Monday, September 3, 2012

Music Monday: Hands Off, Crazy -- BONUS

I found this on Twitter, after Congressman Akin's fantastic example of why politicians should not be involved with women's health-- at all. I think contraception and abortion should be issues that doctors and women deal with. Medical ethicist should be the ones who set medical policy, using REAL science and ethics, not religion.

I also think that as long as employers ask employees to share in the cost of health insurance premiums, they should not be allowed to disallow procedures or coverage along gender lines. If prostrate exams are covered, so must be pap smears and mammograms. If you cover pregnancy, then you must cover contraception (not everyone wants to be pregnant.) If you have a religious objection-- too bad, unless you want to foot the entire bill. An employers religious choices should not trump the employee's religious/ethical opinions/thoughts-- unless the employer wants to foot the ENTIRE BILL (I call this putting YOUR money where your VALUES are.) Cost sharing means belief compromise.

At the moment employees are all at the mercy of their employers for insurance and that is wrong... there is no real choice-- they throw out a plan and we pay for it... That is not a free market. Employers should not hold all the power. They just shouldn't. Unless they want to foot the entire bill.

Furthermore, I say unless you actually have a vagina-- your opinion as to how one cares for the vagina (or the womb for that matter) is really not at all germane to the conversation. I would not dream of weighing in on the care and treatment of a penis or prostrate... I don't have one and therefore I have zero frame of reference... Just as I will never experience a "hard on" or an inconvenient erection during a meeting, or erectile dysfunction... men will never enjoy the joys of a monthly period, the struggle with the side effects of oral contraceptive or monthly depression around a monthly period, which is only alleviated with the oral contraceptive, or a difficult pregnancy. Men will never experience first hand the crush of a miscarriage or the horror of becoming pregnant from rape or incest.

Men can waltz into any drug store or gas station and purchase inexpensive condoms. No doctor visit, no copays, no nothing. Women on the other hand have a variety of options open to them some of which are better than condoms, but they are costly and invasive. If men want more control over the birth control process-- how about they ask for and fund research to find more RX options for themselves? Instead of seeking to control the birth control options for women, why not seek out options for men, that won't end the journey of a fertilized egg-- but instead prevent fertilization AT ALL... Temporary prevention of sperm production would solve a multitude of problems and put birth control control squarely in a man's control. Men would then be empowered to control their OWN bodies. If I were a man, I would not spend my time trying to control women and their bodies-- but be seeking a way to better control my own.

Given that no one is focused on that-- makes me believe this debate is truly about the social control of women and sexuality... not about the mutually assured access to healthcare options and family planning. I think most men, do care about their female partners and want what is best for their future. I would humbly submit those men want birth control covered for their spouse/partners/lovers. Those men are not the ones spouting weird science and wanting to ban all access. Those men aren't crazy.

No comments: