The Political Odyssey That Is Women's Health
56
I can't believe I am even writing about this right now.
It is the middle of an election year, and what I should be writing about is the economy, how President Obama can win re-election and what the Republicans are proposing to move this great country forward. These are the issues I want and should be writing about as a crucial election looms. Instead, I am writing a column on women's health.
Or more like, the battle over women's health.
Contrary to popular belief, the battle over women's health did not start last week, when fund-raising magnet Susan G. Komen decided all of a sudden to cut Planned Parenthood's water off. No, the tale of women and their right to take care of themselves actually began two years ago; when Republicans sweep into office all over the country. After they took office, newly Republican controlled state legislators began to embark on social policies, and one of those policies was abortion. From requiring sonograms before an abortion is even considered to de-funding groups such as Planed Parenthood, the Republicans in the states have made women's health a political agenda.
Unless you are an avid viewer of MSNBC, the battle over women's health had largely gone unnoticed until the first week of February, when the Susan G. Komen foundation decided to pull the plug on financing for Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of reproductive health services in the country. When the Komen foundation pulled the aid from Planned Parenthood, they not only set off a tremendous backlash against the fund-raising giant, but brought the war on women's health into the spotlight.
When questions were being asked into why the Komen foundation decided to pull it's aid, it was discovered that Komen told Planned Parenthood that it's clinics could not perform mammograms on site, thus it could not qualify for Komen's aid. Another reason as to why Komen cut of Planed Parenthood was because it was being investigated by congress, claiming that Planned Parenthood uses taxpayer money to preform abortions.
At over 300,000 abortions performed a year, Planned Parenthood is a favorite target among the anti-abortion crowd. "The radical right has been relentless in their efforts to defund Planned Parenthood," Senator Kristen E. Gillibrand told the New York Times on February 7th. "When these extremist don't succeed in getting laws changed in Congress, they resort to pressuring nonprofits such as the Susan G. Komen for the Cure to stop funding Planned Parenthood." The funding flap actually worked in favor of Planned Parenthood. On the same day the interview with Gillibrand was conducted, the founder and chief executive of the Komen foundation, Nancy G. Brinker, reversed her decision and restored funding and ties to Planned Parenthood.
"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions the recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," Ms. Brinker said in a press release about her change of heart. Not only did Planned Parenthood get the $680,000 annual grant back, but it also received a windfall of nearly $3 Million from donors sympathetic to Planned Parenthood who rushed to it's aid, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who personally donated $250,000 to Planned Parenthood.
But just as it seemed that the war on women's health was dying down, out came president Obama and his decision to require all non-profit organizations, including catholic hospitals and universities, to pay their insures to cover the cost of women's preventive services, including the coverage of contraception, more know as birth control.
This sent Republicans into a frenzy. Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum compared Obama's mandate as leading us to the french revolution. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell vowed to fight the mandate until it was overturned in court or Obama was out of office and numerous GOP representatives and christian leaders were outraged that the president would go this far as to stepping on their beliefs. But this is not about religious beliefs. This is about women getting easier access to important preventive services. And besides, numerous catholic universities and hospitals already offer preventative services in their health care plans. So what is all the fuss about?
And that brings me to the point I'm trying to make. What is all the fuss about over women's health? A women has every right to make sure that she is healthy. Clinics like Planned Parenthood and the provision to cover birth control will not only save women money, but also provide a higher quality of care. This is not about if you think abortion is right or wrong, or you think that using contraceptives is against your religious beliefs. This is about allowing women to make their own choices about their health. It is about saving lives. They don't need the government or the church telling them what is good and not good for them.
Which is why I can't believe I am even writing about this.
CommentsLoading...
Hi John...
I'm gonna reply to your comment in three points:
1)The president offered catholic institutions (Universities, hospitals etc.) and exemption. So this is not a mandate. A mandate is an executive order that has no exemption provisions.
2)Many catholic universities and hospitals already offer contraception in their health plans and 28 states already have in law that business must provide contraception in their health coverage and 8 of those states have NO exemptions. And i am not talking about blue states, I am talking about red states like Georgia and Iowa who have the NO EXEMPTION clause in their law.
3)The group that was having a problem with the "mandate" was the churches. I did not hear a peep of resistance from private business. Why? Because they will pass it on to the health insurance provider that runs the companies health plan. Insurance companies will not mind because providing contraception actually saves them money on other health care related expenditures. Ask yourself this: If you ran a company would you rather spend money on birth control OR spend money on maternity leave? Birth control is less cost effective on a business so they have no problem providing contraception.
And on a side note: People will enjoy sexual experiences weather they are on the pill or not. So that really makes no difference.
Kareem Gantt
Try to understand the difference between the government and the liberties of the people that we have under our Constitution. A law, when passed by Congress covers all of the people. For the President to select who the law covers is not his prerogative after the law is passed. It’s Congress’s power to amend the law if Congress so chooses. The President in our country is not a king or a dictator as yet to command the insurance companies to pay for the cost of the service at no co-pay. The private sector is capable of managing healthcare without government intrusion into the private market.
The Affordable Care Act ( Obamacare ) was passed using unconventional tactics, reconciliation. The act was passed by a super majority political party even when 64% of the people polled were not in favor. The bill is flawed and the public are not being told what is in the bill. Remember when Speaker Pelosi said, ‘’ we must pass the bill so that we can find out what’s in it ‘’. Congressional members voted on the bill without reading the bill, were not allowed to debate the bill or allow the bill to go to committees. That’s what Obama calls transparency in his administration. The private sector needs to find out more about how their government is being run!
Jon..
First and foremost, this country should NOT be ran to serve the private sector. It should be ran to best serve the average American citizen. The private sector does not need to know how their government is ran because the private sector has a big hand in how government runs and how laws are made. The oil subsidies and the anti-piracy laws are just two of the many examples of how the private sector greatly influence Washington, in BOTH the Republican AND Democratic parties. Why do you think the private sector pours so much money into campaigns? They are not just giving that money away. It is to make sure that they put a Representative in Congress that will work on their behalf, not the average Joe like you and me.
And last, in your comments, you keep saying that government should not make the private sector pay for contraception. I don't know what news channel you watch, but from what I see on all the news networks (including Fox News) is that the religious groups are the ones having the biggest problem with the "mandate". All of the congressman's I hear talking on the news say that they oppose this measure because it steps on religious beliefs. I have yet to hear that a private sector or insurance company opposes this "mandate".
Why?
Like I said in my first post, it saves the private sector money. Again, if you go to any corporation and ask them which will the more likely pay for, birth control or maternity leave. 9 times out of 10 they will tell you "Birth Control", because it is cheaper for them to supply a pill then for them to pay weekly or bi-weekly salaries for when a women leaves work on maternity leave. This is NOT a private sector issue, this is a religious belief issue, as have been noted on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN or any local news station or newspaper you watch or read.
Kareem Gantt
Wake up,the cost will be passed on to the people, that's a fact. If any woman wants to have sex ,that's her perogative. If she gets pregnant ,she must be responsible to pay for whatever happens. One must not think that one can can have their cake and eat it too. A solution, have the woman tie their tubes and the men get slit. That way everyone can enjoy sex without any additional cost to the public.My preminums are high enough and it's time for people to be responsible.
Jon,
Yes, it is the woman's prerogative to have sex or not. It is also her prerogative if she wants to take birth control or not. Why does it matter. And that was the whole point of the hub. WHY DOES IT MATTER. The president already changed it so faith-based groups could opt out of the "mandate". Again, it was the religious groups that had the biggest problem with the whole thing. Now, you are right about one thing, that if she chooses to have sex willing and get pregnant, then it is her responsibility. But, like I mentioned before, if she wants to take birth control, that is her wish as well.
Again, the whole point of even talking about birth control when the main focus should be about jobs and the economy IMHO is pointless. And that is where I am gonna leave this conversation at. There is no more point in discussing this further. You are gonna have your point of view, I am gonna have mine. I do respect your point of view though and thank you for keeping this discussion civil. So, I think on a issue like this, I think is best that we agree to disagree.
Kareem Gantt
have a good day
You to Jon,
I actually do like debating with you. At least you know what your talking about and back up your points and don't dive into derivative back and forth and name calling like some people do.
Until the next debate! Have a good one Jon.
Kareem Gantt
check this out.''Debate Rages Over Condoms In Schools
Hi Jon,
Thanks for posting that article, very interesting read. I really don't support condoms in schools. Yes, it is a good idea to practice safe sex, but giving free condoms in school, I don't agree with that. If the kid wants to have sex, then he needs to go to a store and pay for it. Again, it is there decision, just so the kids also know that there are consequences behind that decision.
Kareem Gantt
CLOSE TO 50% OR MORE DON'T GRADUATE, that's a sorry story. What happens to those young people, seriously believe that they are on government aid.
JON EWALL Level 7 Commenter 3 months ago
Kareem Gantt
There is a simple solution.Do you really believe that government can mandate a private business to provide free contraception items at no cost to the particpant who wants to enjoy a sexual experience.Hiv and Aids here we come!