dev_chieftain (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-05-28 02:19 pm
dev_chieftain) wrote2012-05-28 02:19 pm
From a conversation on Deviantart
I found this person's journal post on the subject of contraception and whether the Obama Administration (TM)'s suggested legislation requiring it be a part of provided healthcare was right or wrong. Regrettably, she's had some bad experiences and was pretty strongly against it. Below is the comment I wrote her, which I hope will change her mind.
"Hey there! I found your stuff through ~inu-nutfan's stuff in a conversation about Mary Sues. I was interested in your work, and then saw your journal.
I'd like to talk with you about this subject because this is the kind of subject that's really personally important to me. As someone above mentioned, it's first of all completely reasonable because viagra is already covered. Like viagra, birth control is not required for anyone, but the option to have it should be available in case someone might need it.
Second, the problem here is that church is a social institution. There may be people who wish to use birth control who feel pressured by the people around them not to use it, and need a recourse to be able to do so without being denied the right to a medication they are seeking because of religious peer pressure.
The biggest problem though is that when a woman is denied the use of contraceptives, she is denied the opportunity to plan her family at her own convenience. Unless a woman is barren or, presuming she is involved with a man, her companion is sterile, it's very likely that an unexpected pregnancy will occur if she engages in sexual relations with that person. We're assuming here that this is a married woman having sex with her husband for the sake of minimizing outside factors in the decision-making process here, but consider the following:
-a pregnant woman has to take time off from work, and has very large hospital bills in most cases because of her stay during delivery and following (especially if she may have complications during the process of birth).
-some states do not recognize the right of a woman to take this time off from a job and will permit employers to lay off or fire women as a result of this.
-a pregnant woman may have serious medical complications, which increases the overall cost of living for her even before her child is born.
-a mother's cost of living is also increased because of the presence of her child, but she may not be able to make time for a full time job while also parenting. This is no poor reflection on the woman, but it does make the job of providing for her family that much more difficult. This is exacerbated if the woman was not planning to get pregnant.
For example, a woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly while working as a lawyer may be fine, financially, but risks losing clients while she is on maternity leave; likewise, a woman who is only barely making ends meet and works full time at a local movie theater may have no way to keep her job and also care for her child, and is not going to be making more money following the birth to help support her.
Contraceptives are the solution to religious concerns about abortions, as well. Abortions are going to be less likely if women who wish not to have children have the opportunity to use contraceptives in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives are not prescribed by physicians to women who are already pregnant in order to protect the unborn child, and they provide a middle-ground option to help provide women greater equality in our society.
Women as it currently stands are not equal players in the field. Our society is a very patriarchal one, and women's rights need to include the right to decide what to do with your body, personally. Just as you have your right to abstain from the use of birth control, other women should have the option to have the right to use it if they so desire.
The final thing I want to point out is, many women in abusive relationships are entrapped by husbands who seek to get them pregnant as a means of ownership and control. When pregnant, as you can imagine, a woman is fairly vulnerable (moreso than she might be otherwise), because the process is physically limiting and, at late stages of pregnancy, can prevent a woman from, for example, running away from a bad situation. Giving women in these situations the option to try to prevent these pregnancies, so that they have a little bit more freedom in their lives and the ability to (hopefully) leave these abusive situations, is probably the most important side-effect of the Obama administration's suggested change.
As someone who wishes not to use birth control, I hope you can understand that the legislation is simply being put into place to make it more possible for people who want birth control to access it. This is something you should support because, as someone who is in favor of tolerance and respecting the rights of other people (as I surmised from your post), I can't see how you would find fault with this legislation.
Anyway, I hope to hear back from you and that this framing of the issue is a little more logical than those arguments you have been exposed to thus far. Thanks for posting about this. Always interesting to see someone else's side of things!"
There are a few important things I didn't mention in this comment because I felt they would taint my response with emotion that is unimportant to this person's personal feelings on the matter:
-I live in Arizona, where I have already experienced the fact that my birth control medication is no longer required to be covered as part of my health insurance. Despite the fact that I use this insurance for literally nothing else, the cost has recently gone up and may go up to the full monthly price thanks to the recent legislation passed by the AZ governer Jan Brewer.
-The expectation of society is, as she noted, placed heavily on the woman to be responsible for preventing pregnancies. Despite the existence of condoms, I've found that the men I have associated with balk at buying them and don't like the expense. On average, a box of condoms (which, with my sexual appetites, lasts longer than a month) costs between 6 and 16 US$. My birth control at its cheapest cost 20$ per month, and now costs 33.50$. If my insurance stops covering it, it'd be 60$ per month. Additionally, I should point out that there is a generic version, but both my physician with Planned Parenthood and my health insurance provider made it clear that even though the generic version was 9$ per month, they have not prescribed it for me and I may not use my insurance for it.
The generic version of the medication is identical, chemically. Sort of like getting Kroger mouthwash because you don't have 7$ that week to buy a bottle of Listerine brand, and the Kroger was on sale for 3$.
Insurance providers need to be required to cover this kind of medication because it's absolutely unreasonable that women should be expected to pay full price for this medication when it's actually necessary for the woman to be able to continue working as a productive member of society. As pointed out in my comment, briefly, and in the comment I reference, viagra is actually covered by health insurance, and that drug is popularly known for being used to help men who can't to enjoy having more sex.
I have heard arguments made that covering the contraceptives is tantamount to paying women for having sex. (Thanks, Rush Limbaugh.) I contest that if we're paying men to have and enjoy sex, it's about time society gave some thought into making sure that women are allowed to have and enjoy sex, too. Yes, women should be able to enjoy sex. Instead, the arguments against the proposed legislation are basically that women should not be allowed to have sex at their convenience, and should be prepared to have a baby-- an onerous, exhausting, life-risking experience, no matter how exciting it might be to bring a new life into the world-- every single time they do so.
That is not just sexist, that's fucked up and creepy.
So, I really hope she'll understand where I'm coming from and that said comment will have some effect. Nothing makes me sadder than seeing a woman who's against the rights of other women.
"Hey there! I found your stuff through ~inu-nutfan's stuff in a conversation about Mary Sues. I was interested in your work, and then saw your journal.
I'd like to talk with you about this subject because this is the kind of subject that's really personally important to me. As someone above mentioned, it's first of all completely reasonable because viagra is already covered. Like viagra, birth control is not required for anyone, but the option to have it should be available in case someone might need it.
Second, the problem here is that church is a social institution. There may be people who wish to use birth control who feel pressured by the people around them not to use it, and need a recourse to be able to do so without being denied the right to a medication they are seeking because of religious peer pressure.
The biggest problem though is that when a woman is denied the use of contraceptives, she is denied the opportunity to plan her family at her own convenience. Unless a woman is barren or, presuming she is involved with a man, her companion is sterile, it's very likely that an unexpected pregnancy will occur if she engages in sexual relations with that person. We're assuming here that this is a married woman having sex with her husband for the sake of minimizing outside factors in the decision-making process here, but consider the following:
-a pregnant woman has to take time off from work, and has very large hospital bills in most cases because of her stay during delivery and following (especially if she may have complications during the process of birth).
-some states do not recognize the right of a woman to take this time off from a job and will permit employers to lay off or fire women as a result of this.
-a pregnant woman may have serious medical complications, which increases the overall cost of living for her even before her child is born.
-a mother's cost of living is also increased because of the presence of her child, but she may not be able to make time for a full time job while also parenting. This is no poor reflection on the woman, but it does make the job of providing for her family that much more difficult. This is exacerbated if the woman was not planning to get pregnant.
For example, a woman who gets pregnant unexpectedly while working as a lawyer may be fine, financially, but risks losing clients while she is on maternity leave; likewise, a woman who is only barely making ends meet and works full time at a local movie theater may have no way to keep her job and also care for her child, and is not going to be making more money following the birth to help support her.
Contraceptives are the solution to religious concerns about abortions, as well. Abortions are going to be less likely if women who wish not to have children have the opportunity to use contraceptives in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Contraceptives are not prescribed by physicians to women who are already pregnant in order to protect the unborn child, and they provide a middle-ground option to help provide women greater equality in our society.
Women as it currently stands are not equal players in the field. Our society is a very patriarchal one, and women's rights need to include the right to decide what to do with your body, personally. Just as you have your right to abstain from the use of birth control, other women should have the option to have the right to use it if they so desire.
The final thing I want to point out is, many women in abusive relationships are entrapped by husbands who seek to get them pregnant as a means of ownership and control. When pregnant, as you can imagine, a woman is fairly vulnerable (moreso than she might be otherwise), because the process is physically limiting and, at late stages of pregnancy, can prevent a woman from, for example, running away from a bad situation. Giving women in these situations the option to try to prevent these pregnancies, so that they have a little bit more freedom in their lives and the ability to (hopefully) leave these abusive situations, is probably the most important side-effect of the Obama administration's suggested change.
As someone who wishes not to use birth control, I hope you can understand that the legislation is simply being put into place to make it more possible for people who want birth control to access it. This is something you should support because, as someone who is in favor of tolerance and respecting the rights of other people (as I surmised from your post), I can't see how you would find fault with this legislation.
Anyway, I hope to hear back from you and that this framing of the issue is a little more logical than those arguments you have been exposed to thus far. Thanks for posting about this. Always interesting to see someone else's side of things!"
There are a few important things I didn't mention in this comment because I felt they would taint my response with emotion that is unimportant to this person's personal feelings on the matter:
-I live in Arizona, where I have already experienced the fact that my birth control medication is no longer required to be covered as part of my health insurance. Despite the fact that I use this insurance for literally nothing else, the cost has recently gone up and may go up to the full monthly price thanks to the recent legislation passed by the AZ governer Jan Brewer.
-The expectation of society is, as she noted, placed heavily on the woman to be responsible for preventing pregnancies. Despite the existence of condoms, I've found that the men I have associated with balk at buying them and don't like the expense. On average, a box of condoms (which, with my sexual appetites, lasts longer than a month) costs between 6 and 16 US$. My birth control at its cheapest cost 20$ per month, and now costs 33.50$. If my insurance stops covering it, it'd be 60$ per month. Additionally, I should point out that there is a generic version, but both my physician with Planned Parenthood and my health insurance provider made it clear that even though the generic version was 9$ per month, they have not prescribed it for me and I may not use my insurance for it.
The generic version of the medication is identical, chemically. Sort of like getting Kroger mouthwash because you don't have 7$ that week to buy a bottle of Listerine brand, and the Kroger was on sale for 3$.
Insurance providers need to be required to cover this kind of medication because it's absolutely unreasonable that women should be expected to pay full price for this medication when it's actually necessary for the woman to be able to continue working as a productive member of society. As pointed out in my comment, briefly, and in the comment I reference, viagra is actually covered by health insurance, and that drug is popularly known for being used to help men who can't to enjoy having more sex.
I have heard arguments made that covering the contraceptives is tantamount to paying women for having sex. (Thanks, Rush Limbaugh.) I contest that if we're paying men to have and enjoy sex, it's about time society gave some thought into making sure that women are allowed to have and enjoy sex, too. Yes, women should be able to enjoy sex. Instead, the arguments against the proposed legislation are basically that women should not be allowed to have sex at their convenience, and should be prepared to have a baby-- an onerous, exhausting, life-risking experience, no matter how exciting it might be to bring a new life into the world-- every single time they do so.
That is not just sexist, that's fucked up and creepy.
So, I really hope she'll understand where I'm coming from and that said comment will have some effect. Nothing makes me sadder than seeing a woman who's against the rights of other women.