3 ms·

> I have in the past commented on the fact that insurance typically did not cover female birth control, but often did cover Viagra. Not trying to disagree with

> I have in the past commented on the fact that insurance typically did not cover female birth control, but often did cover Viagra. Not trying to disagree with you but I think this isn't a fair comparison. Erectile dysfunction is a medical issue in the sense that you're actually broken. Birth control is different in that you can (mostly) live your life without birth control. I say mostly because there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things. A more fair comparison would be male vs female sterilization or condoms. If condoms were free for men but not for women then that would be a great point. Again. Not saying I disagree with you just that this isn't an apples to oranges comparison.

jawns 8y ago
I agree about the apples to oranges comparison. ED is, as you say, a medical condition. The "dysfunction" in the name indicates that things aren't working properly. In contrast, no one has ever been diagnosed with being fertile, because being fertile is not a dysfunction. I do want to suggest, however, that a change of language is warranted around this issue. You write: "there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things." These women do not need to be on birth control. They need to receive hormone therapy, which happens to be, in a lot of cases, the same medication used for birth control. I know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it's actually quite a meaningful distinction. I would not say that a newborn girl with chronic pulmonary hypertension needs to be on erectile dysfunction medication. Rather, I would say that she can be treated with sildenafil, which happens to also be the active ingredient in Viagra. Similarly, a woman might use hormone therapy to avoid menorrhagia, and a side effect might be that it decreases her ability to become pregnant, and she may or may not be happy with that side effect. When you make this language shift -- "birth control" applies to contraception, which disrupts the body's natural fertility, and "hormone therapy" applies to treatment of medical conditions and dysfunctions -- it helps resolve some hot-button issues. For instance, if a woman works for a religious employer that does not cover contraception, I would imagine that employer would have no issue with her receiving appropriate hormone therapy for a medical condition such as menorrhagia, even if a decrease in fertility is a known side effect.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
DoreenMichele 8y ago
Women generally make less money than men. Raising a child alone when you can barely support yourself is a serious hardship. These stats are out of date and for illustration purposes only: If a woman makes 2/3 what a man makes, he makes 1 1/2 times what she makes. If it takes 90% of what she earns to just scrape by and only 10% of her income is discretionary funds, he has many times as much discretionary money as her. If she has a child out of wedlock and has to raise it alone, childcare will be far more than her current "fun money." So having a child out of wedlock can ruin a woman's life, even before we get into potential medical complications, what if the child has special needs? etc. If you have a one night stand with a stranger and a pregnancy results, he may never know he fathered a child. She may find herself pregnant out of wedlock with no means to contact the father, thus no hope of even asking for child support. Women generally worry quite a lot about unintended pregnancy because it can so completely derail their lives in an unrecoverable fashion. (IIRC) Getting pregnant unexpectedly is one of the three biggest risk factors for plunging a woman into poverty, even if she's always been middle class, is well educated, etc. The other two are divorce and widowhood.
- x220 8y ago
  The best choice to make when you don't have birth control and don't want to have a child is to not have sex, since even having sex using condoms and similar protection are not completely effective. Are you saying that birth control should be covered because women are incapable of making objectively good decisions when they don't have birth control?

jawns 8y ago

I agree about the apples to oranges comparison. ED is, as you say, a medical condition. The "dysfunction" in the name indicates that things aren't working properly. In contrast, no one has ever been diagnosed with being fertile, because being fertile is not a dysfunction. I do want to suggest, however, that a change of language is warranted around this issue. You write: "there are women that need to be on birth control for actual medical reasons in that they have complications with PMS and this mitigates things." These women do not need to be on birth control. They need to receive hormone therapy, which happens to be, in a lot of cases, the same medication used for birth control. I know it sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it's actually quite a meaningful distinction. I would not say that a newborn girl with chronic pulmonary hypertension needs to be on erectile dysfunction medication. Rather, I would say that she can be treated with sildenafil, which happens to also be the active ingredient in Viagra. Similarly, a woman might use hormone therapy to avoid menorrhagia, and a side effect might be that it decreases her ability to become pregnant, and she may or may not be happy with that side effect. When you make this language shift -- "birth control" applies to contraception, which disrupts the body's natural fertility, and "hormone therapy" applies to treatment of medical conditions and dysfunctions -- it helps resolve some hot-button issues. For instance, if a woman works for a religious employer that does not cover contraception, I would imagine that employer would have no issue with her receiving appropriate hormone therapy for a medical condition such as menorrhagia, even if a decrease in fertility is a known side effect.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

DoreenMichele 8y ago

Women generally make less money than men. Raising a child alone when you can barely support yourself is a serious hardship. These stats are out of date and for illustration purposes only: If a woman makes 2/3 what a man makes, he makes 1 1/2 times what she makes. If it takes 90% of what she earns to just scrape by and only 10% of her income is discretionary funds, he has many times as much discretionary money as her. If she has a child out of wedlock and has to raise it alone, childcare will be far more than her current "fun money." So having a child out of wedlock can ruin a woman's life, even before we get into potential medical complications, what if the child has special needs? etc. If you have a one night stand with a stranger and a pregnancy results, he may never know he fathered a child. She may find herself pregnant out of wedlock with no means to contact the father, thus no hope of even asking for child support. Women generally worry quite a lot about unintended pregnancy because it can so completely derail their lives in an unrecoverable fashion. (IIRC) Getting pregnant unexpectedly is one of the three biggest risk factors for plunging a woman into poverty, even if she's always been middle class, is well educated, etc. The other two are divorce and widowhood.

x220 8y ago
The best choice to make when you don't have birth control and don't want to have a child is to not have sex, since even having sex using condoms and similar protection are not completely effective. Are you saying that birth control should be covered because women are incapable of making objectively good decisions when they don't have birth control?