Arizona now has a bill in its state legislature that would require women to show proof of a medical need (those worthy would be endometriosis, ovarian cysts, etc.) to take hormonal birth control pills to have their medication covered by insurance. If a woman is taking the pills purely to prevent pregnancy, then she needs to pay for the pills herself. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html?ref=mostpopular
I mean, really? I think the real low point of the article was the quote from the bill's sponsor that compared the United States to the Soviet Union for requiring "mom and pop businesses" to support "immoral" behavior. What??? There are so many problems with that statement that I don't even know where to begin. My question is whether it would be acceptable to be married and have sex and use oral contraceptives purely to avoid being pregnant but unacceptable if you were unmarried, or is it an across-the-board "no pregnancy prevention for you!" declaration of sorts??? In addition, let me point out that, per the Guttmacher Institute's report on teenage pregnancy, Arizona was 3rd in the nation with highest teenager pregnancy rates. (See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf) Are you sure that you want to be taking away oral contraceptives??? Let me also point out that Arizona has a higher rate than the national average of single-parent households, families living under the poverty rate, and unemployed parents. (See http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-profile.aspx?state=arizona). Now, I realize that theoretically, the bill is talking about effecting employed Arizonians, but considering that the state is in the bottom-half of the stats, I would think that the state would want to give everyone the most help they could to prevent pregnancies to women who cannot adequately provide for the potential child, and by "provide" I mean in a multitude of ways, not just financially.
Again, it seems that the conservative right is becoming more and more extreme and is seeking to limit people's rights under the guise of expanding rights. Essentially, this makes me flex my fingers in an exasperated way and want to shake these people until they get it together. Where is our common ground??? I don't know at this point. If I was really juvenile and wanting to go to a really absurd extreme (and if I was involved in any way, shape, or form), I'd test out how far I could get with a bill permitting employers to reject covering throat and lung cancer treatment unless the person could show that he or she was not a smoker "because of moral objections" to smoking. Oh, yeah, see how you like that, Arizona. Of course, I am not juvenile (I hope), and I believe in trying to find a common ground to resolve points of contention, and, most importantly, I am not involved in any way, shape, or form. But know that I'm protesting here and now the utter ridiculousness of this bill.
I mean, really? I think the real low point of the article was the quote from the bill's sponsor that compared the United States to the Soviet Union for requiring "mom and pop businesses" to support "immoral" behavior. What??? There are so many problems with that statement that I don't even know where to begin. My question is whether it would be acceptable to be married and have sex and use oral contraceptives purely to avoid being pregnant but unacceptable if you were unmarried, or is it an across-the-board "no pregnancy prevention for you!" declaration of sorts??? In addition, let me point out that, per the Guttmacher Institute's report on teenage pregnancy, Arizona was 3rd in the nation with highest teenager pregnancy rates. (See http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf) Are you sure that you want to be taking away oral contraceptives??? Let me also point out that Arizona has a higher rate than the national average of single-parent households, families living under the poverty rate, and unemployed parents. (See http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/state-data/state-profile.aspx?state=arizona). Now, I realize that theoretically, the bill is talking about effecting employed Arizonians, but considering that the state is in the bottom-half of the stats, I would think that the state would want to give everyone the most help they could to prevent pregnancies to women who cannot adequately provide for the potential child, and by "provide" I mean in a multitude of ways, not just financially.
Again, it seems that the conservative right is becoming more and more extreme and is seeking to limit people's rights under the guise of expanding rights. Essentially, this makes me flex my fingers in an exasperated way and want to shake these people until they get it together. Where is our common ground??? I don't know at this point. If I was really juvenile and wanting to go to a really absurd extreme (and if I was involved in any way, shape, or form), I'd test out how far I could get with a bill permitting employers to reject covering throat and lung cancer treatment unless the person could show that he or she was not a smoker "because of moral objections" to smoking. Oh, yeah, see how you like that, Arizona. Of course, I am not juvenile (I hope), and I believe in trying to find a common ground to resolve points of contention, and, most importantly, I am not involved in any way, shape, or form. But know that I'm protesting here and now the utter ridiculousness of this bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment