1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bush administration hates women, part 2,361

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Cadet, Nov 22, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on Campuses:

    Because of a federal law that went into effect this year, pharmaceutical companies that used to provide college campuses and other clinics for low-income women with deeply discounted prescription contraceptives can no longer do so.

    What this means is the cost of one month's worth of birth control pills used to be around $10 ($120 per year) and it is now around $50 ($600 per year).

    Women shoulder the burden of contraceptive costs (when was the last time you knew a college guy who helped pay for birth control pills?) and the costs that go with them, such as the doctor's exam that must accompany the initial prescription.

    The conservatives have two defenses against this: 1) If they're not married, they should be practicing abstinence anyway and 2) college women are likely covered under their parents' insurance.

    First, hormonal birth control is not just about prevention of pregnancy. It is used by women of all ages and marital status to decrease menstrual problems and handle any naturally abnormal hormone levels.

    And there are many things wrong with the insurance theory: clinics for low-income women (including Planned Parenthood, which was affected by this law) usually don't serve those with insurance, hence the name; prescription co-pays may be greater to or equal than the increased costs; and there are still insurance companies that do not cover contraceptives.

    I first learned about this new provision when it kicked in, but this is the first article I've seen about it. And it disgusts me that this conservative administration is finding every way possible to hurt women.
  2. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Want to be loved by this administration? Become a fetus.

    But after you're born, you're on your own.
  3. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Fuck abstinence.
  4. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

  5. MU_was_not_so_hard

    MU_was_not_so_hard Active Member

    Not like this is exactly just happening. BC has increased through health centers like crazy in the last several years.
  6. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    Did anyone actually read the story linked in the first post?

    Maybe I took something different from it, but it sounds more like the legislators overreached, and now want to fix this issue. Maybe there's another story somewhere that says Bush and the religious freaks he is beholden to pushed this law through? This situation sucks, but I couldn't extrapolate "That damn BUSH!!!" from "Um . . .we really screwed up, and we need to do something about this." Even the Democratic lawmakers pushing for the change say it was inadvertent that this happened, when the easiest thing they could say is "That damn GOP!"

    And Cadet, I was a college guy who helped pay for such things. If a dude is seriously dating a young lady and he refuses to help pay for the birth control, he should shape the hell up.
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    The pill ain't the only cost when it comes to "paying for birth control," you know.
  8. Cadet

    Cadet Guest

    I'm glad that you were. But at what point does it become serious enough that a guy will contribute? After three dates? Four? What if they're dating for a while but also seeing other people? What if they're just fuck buddies? The line is subjective for men but objective for women, because it's an ongoing expense.

    And I'm glad that the government is looking to change the law. But the law was the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Cheney broke the tie in the Senate, it passed the (Republican) house and Bush signed off on it.

    Why should a "Deficit Reduction Act" have anything to do with prescription medications that, oh by the way, pro-abstinence conservatives want to limit anyway? The administration has run up a gargantuan bill for the unjust war and they have passed the pressure on to the country's poorest (and in this case, poorest women) through a reduction of health care services.

    EDIT: There were many other health care-related items affected in this bill, most of which I consider crap, too.
  9. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    That explains a lot; I wasn't aware of the exact history of the vote behind the Act. Sounds like a typical bill which includes a lot of forgotten below-the-table stuff squeezed in there, lost in the decision-making process.

    But I don't think Bush hates women. I think he has disdain for everyone.

    As for "when does a dude start paying?" I don't know. But to me it's a case of "I like you. I like having sex with you. I would like to continue to make whoopee with you. I would not like that thumpity to send us to the clinic for baby advice. How can I help prevent that situation, while continuing to enjoy nick-nick with you?"
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    "....while continuing to enjoy nick-nick with you?"

    Say that line, and you won't have to worry about the need for birth control.
  11. OTD

    OTD Active Member

    How much could it cost to say "No, really, I'll pull it out, I swear!"?
  12. mike311gd

    mike311gd Active Member

    Nothing initially, but I could have kids somewhere who'll beg to differ. ...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page