A question re all this talk about contraception

[justabob]

Are vasectomies included? I mean, are men having that option taken away from them too? Do the religious folks feel the same way about men's reproductive choices? Does insurance cover that procedure now?

Sorry if this is a stupid question. I have spent a lot of time lately thinking of all the ways these horrid bills and proposals are wrong and hypocritical etc and this question came up.

[spanone]

1. no, that was brought up on hardball today.

[BumRushDaShow]

2. Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D, CA) asked the same question

on Tweety's show this afternoon.

That one got Tweety stumbling and mumbling and choking.

[Angry Dragon]

3. Not a stupid question

My answer is I do not know
No more condoms??

[justabob]

6. condoms too

I can see them being banned or some such in future.

[TheWraith]

27. The answer is no, vasectomies are NOT covered under the rule.

Nor are they covered under most healthcare plans. They're considered "elective surgery" as well as not being medically necessary.

[valerief]

4. In religion world, doesn't Viagra play a part in contraception, too? nt

[broiles]

7. If they get rid of the pill, straight men will no longer need viagra. n/t

[valerief]

8. Oh, yeah, I got it backward. In religion world, gnikcuf is good if you get babies, so they want

coverage for Viagra.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. They approve of gnikcuf sdrawkcab?

I thought only missionary was approved of?

[Iggo]

19. bA-DUMP, pSSSHHHHH!!!!!

[valerief]

21. Well, they're hypocrites, so it's okay. nt

[Posteritatis]

5. I'd imagine male contraception is completely off most of the objectors' radars. (nt)

[valerief]

10. I got it mixed up. Coverage for sex with babies is good in religion world. Coverage for sex without

babies is bad in religion world.

[HockeyMom]

9. Catholic Church is opposed to vasectomies too

ALL methods of BC. Although since the female contraceptives on market today are considered abortions, a male vasectomy would be the lesser of two evils.

[justabob]

11. I figured the Vatican as anti

I am curious if the fundies feel the same? I'd bet they do, but since men are competent to make decisions regarding their own bodies ( ), I wondered if there was yet another double standard in play.

[kestrel91316]

13. The Catholic Church will not join someone in marriage if they are

infertile for any reason. Vasectomy would be a reason, as would be paraplegia, post-menopause, etc etc.

[moriah]

14. Really? Hadn't heard that one before.

Impotence was a bar, but I thought infertility just had to be disclosed.

[HockeyMom]

15. NATURAL infertility is ok

because GOD has done that. DELIBERATE infertility is evil. Of course, how would they know??????

[Bluerthanblue]

16. is this true?

an older couple couldn't be married in a Catholic church? Or someone who'd become sterile because of cancer treatment? I'd never heard this before.

[kestrel91316]

28. Marriage and sex are ONLY for procreation. It's Catholic doctrine.

They will apparently marry older folks on the grounds that some ancient woman in the bible supposedly got pregnant. But they will not knowingly marry a couple otherwise where there are any impediments to fertility. Some guy in a wheelchair comes to mind. Saw the report of it on the web some time ago.

[smokey nj]

33. No, it isn't.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/FAQ_Marriage.htm

[smokey nj]

32. That's not true.

http://catholicism.about.com/od/catholicliving/f/FAQ_Marriage.htm

[quaker bill]

12. vasectomies

mine was not covered. Still worth the $ spent.

[Tx4obama]

17. If JFK were still alive I wonder what he would think of all of this!

Back when JFK was running for president he had to convince the American public that he wouldn't be taking orders from The Pope.
Now the GOP Congresscritters are taking their orders from the Catholic Bishops.

If you live long enough there's no telling what you'll see happen!

[redqueen]

20. Well said. nt

[Proud Liberal Dem]

22. No kidding!

Look at what has happened just within the past decade

Election 2000

George W. Bush as (P)resident

9/11

Gitmo

Invasion/Occupation of Iraq

Torture="Enhanced Interrogation"=O.k.

Warrantless Wiretapping

Terri Schiavo

Social Security Privatization (attempted)

Sarah Palin

"Tea Party"

House Speaker John Boehner

[Kber]

23. Probably isn't covered because a vasectomy doesn't provide men with a health benefit

Pregnancy is dangerous, and preventing pregnancy is a very important component of a woman's overall health. For example, had I been born in 19th century America (or present day Afghanistan) I'd be dead three times over instead of being a relatively healthy 40 year old with 2 healthy kids. The later a woman delays her first pregnancy, the earlier she stops having children, and the fewer she has, the healthier she physically is. Those are the facts.

Vasectomies are convenient, but don't provide the receiver with a direct physical health benefit.

The Admin's agrument is that preventative care must be covered 100% and that B.C. falls into that category, based on all current medical research.

[justabob]

24. thank you

It is true what you say about pregnancy. I didn't mean to gloss over women's health, and everything that entails. I had a feeling vasectomies were not covered already (now confirmed), but I just wondered about the hypocrisy/double standards of the anti people.

[Kber]

25. Agree 100%

[saras]

26. NO male contraception. It makes rape less threatening, and they can't have that.

The WHOLE POINT of banning female contraception is so that males can oppress them with the threat of having to raise rape babies. They don't want more BABIES - they're expensive, dirty, messy, demanding, and you have to treat them like liberals or they'll die of wasting disease. No, they want more fear, more pain, more oppression, more dead women from under-the-table abortions, more broken women married to their rapists, more kids institutionalized and raised as psychopaths.

[TheWraith]

29. FYI, accusing all men of being rapists and psychopaths is extremely offensive. nt

[saras]

34. I agree. It's a really wild stretch from anything anyone else said, so why are you doing it?

[Shankapotomus]

35. That and they consider feminization

of women a threat. A woman not suppressed by the burden of pregnancy and child rearing is a threat to men in the workforce and everywhere.

[meow2u3]

30. We're all missing the bigger point

After all these years, have we learned that all this talk about contraception serves one and only one purpose: to use it as a wedge issue and keep us from talking about the dismal economy, the lack of jobs, and the 1% ripping us off blind. The suspicious timing, i.e., an election year, makes me think so. The GOP is changing the subject because their ties to the banksters and corporate criminals are their weakness.

When we fight among ourselves about contraception, religion, and freedom, we're playing right into the hands of the rethugs, who are using sex as a typical diversionary tactic to take our minds off the rampant poverty and corporate impunity. Let's keep our eyes on the prize and refocus on what embarrasses the repukes the most: economic inequality.

[Nikia]

31. My last two health care plan covered both male and female sterilization

I don't know if this is common or only for Wisconsin.
Whether or not coverage of the procedure is common or uncommon, I think that it should be covered. It does decrease the chances of pregnancy, especially since the man covered may be married with his wife covered on the insurance. If she is monagamous, she will no longer need birth control pills. This may be the healthiest option for couples who do not want more children and cost effective in the long run.