I'm not surprised. I'm kind of angry that there's never any mention of women who have endometrioses and have to have birth-control in order just to ease the pain. I have endometrioses and I remember how hard it was to tell the anti-choice people. I'm lucky, I get my prescriptions filled at my university campus.
What really disturbs me is that democratic women are actually going to vote for McCain over Obama just because Clinton lost. I like Clinton, but Obama is pro-choice and against abstinence-only sex education. We can't afford to let the conservatives get in the white house again.
I _______________ pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain's...
*fight to overturn Roe v. Wade and my right to choose.
*fight against equal pay for men and women.
*opposition to providing low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.
*opposition to sex education and support of abstinence-only education.
*opposition to insurance covering birth control.
*endorsement of women's rights more "in theory" than in practice.
*pet name for his wife.
As a woman I promise to apply McCain's principles to my own life and vow to...
*call myself and my female friends the C word.
*picket abortion clinics.
*not use contraceptives.
*drink bleach so I don't catch HIV and drink Mountain Dew so I don't get pregnant.
*give back part of my salary to male coworkers.
*not vote, but pursue education and encourage my father/husband/brother male friends to vote for McCain.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and I will not complain about my losing my right to choose, and other reproductive freedoms. And I will continue to refrain from pursuing equality for women.
Signature ____________ "
There are versions for gays and straight white guys, too!
Thanks for responding ladies, I was starting to think no one really noticed. I have found arguments on several blogs that go along the lines of "Tax payers shouldn't have to pay for birth control for women, they can have it, but not on gov't dollars" Because.. what?! Providing prenatal care to low income women is much cheaper than the cost of birth control?? Or how about the food stamps that will help the mother feed this baby??
Another argument: "access to birth control not a health issue, so stop comparing it to viagra". Apparently a limp penis is a health issue???!!! As far as I know impotence is sometimes a symptom of a heart condition or other related illness, but not a health issue in general. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but has a man ever died from a limp penis?!
I agree Shireen, women who have endometrioses, and other health issues that require birth control should not be denied these prescriptions. I feel this issue is a religious agenda in action. Entirely unreasonable.
As for voting, the nerd, I don't know who to advise you to vote for. I, myself, will vote for Obama.
Wonderful!! I'm so glad to hear that!! My pregnancy was also funded by the tax payers! It was an enormous expense to the system from just one pregnant woman, costing over 10k from beginning to end of pregnancy, as I'm sure your pregnancy cost about the same.
I guess over 10k every 9 months in hospital bills is more reasonable than approximately 10 bucks a month for the birth control..
The tax payers also paid for my birth control for the four years I was in college. In that time I had the chance to move off the system and onto becoming a self supporting tax payer myself. As a tax payer, I want the option of birth control to be provided to other low income women.
I'm so glad I can relate to someone on this issue, I often look back at my past poverty stricken situation, and feel guilty for not being able to take care of myself and my daughter.
This is complete and utter nonsense. This is EXACTLY why we need more sex education in schools. People need to know that VIAGRA is not a health issue and birth control can make the difference between someone going to school and staying home with debilitating cramps.
Besides, economically it makes no sense to eliminate BC from federal funding. The amount of people federal money would have to go to support would rise dramatically (as it would if we made abortion illegal), which would mean that each person would get fewer resources allocated to them and have a poorer quality of life. And I don't mean that these kids would have fewer toys to play with... there would be fewer jobs, less food available in supermarkets (unless we find a way to grow food faster?), less available space (more people would be forced to live in cities), and education would diminish because we all know that larger classrooms are bad for teachers.
I'm not a genius or anything, but this seems pretty obvious to me. Why doesn't the Bush administration start looking at practical, reasonable results to his fanciful moral judgments rather than assume that people will be totally okay without getting their monthly hormones?