This page was last updated on March 13, 2012.
Men would change their tunes; Linda Thomas; Beaver County Times; March 11, 2012.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“This letter is written in response to Paul Kisiday’s ‘Think about Motives’
[RWC] Before I get into the critique, here’s an excerpt from my Healthcare paper: “Healthcare insurance covers more than it used to. Until sometime after the 1960s, we usually referred to healthcare insurance as ‘major medical.’ This was because healthcare insurance covered only major medical expenses (like surgery) and emergency treatment (like treatment for injuries suffered in an accident) that could be financially catastrophic to a family. When you went to the doctor’s office for ‘minor’ afflictions, you paid for the visit and treatment out of your own pocket. Today, however, healthcare insurance also tends to cover routine visits to the doctor’s office, prescription drugs, et cetera. Look at it this way. How much more would you have to pay for auto insurance if the policy also covered routine maintenance (new tires, oil changes, et cetera), including preventive maintenance (inspections, 6,000 mile checkups, et cetera)? Insurance of all kinds works best when it’s used to protect against unlikely events with financially catastrophic results. Using insurance to pay for routine events makes no sense.”
As a reminder, this is not about contraception, access to contraceptives, or some idiot’s (I’m not referring to Ms. Thomas.) idea of a “war on women.” This manufactured mess is about government forcing individuals and religious organizations to engage in activities that violate their religious beliefs. Please don’t be a dope and ask something like “Oh yeah; what if a religion required cannibalism?” It’s also a political ploy to change the subject from things like the economy.
“He said it would be interesting to see how this would be handled if the shoe was on the other foot and the men were the ones who had children ... Would these women take the same stand?
“He also asked why contraceptives and abortions are covered by insurance when they are not necessities like other medications.
“I guess women take contraceptives for the same reason that men have vasectomies and take Viagra and Cialis. Men have vasectomies because they don’t want any more children. They take the pills so that they can continue to have sex and possibly impregnate women who can’t afford to support or are ready for children.”
[RWC] Ms. Thomas is comparing apples and oranges. There’s no comparison between contraceptives and “Viagra and Cialis.” Contraceptives used by women stop pregnancy by either inhibiting conception or inhibiting embryo implantation. A vasectomy is more comparable to a woman having a tubal ligation. Viagra and Cialis treat erectile dysfunction, a medical condition.
“I am not one that believes abortion should be used for birth control, and I would hope with all good conscious that it is not. But there are a lot of men in this country who don’t support the children they produce or are involved in any way with them.”
[RWC] I don’t know Ms. Thomas, but I find it hard to believe she thinks abortion is not “used for birth control.” As for “there are a lot of men in this country who don’t support the children they produce or are involved in any way with them,” the same is true for a lot of women.
“It’s a double standard to say it’s OK for insurance to pay for men but not for women. If the women’s contraceptive methods are not paid for by insurance then men’s vasectomies, Viagra and Cialis should not be paid for either.”
[RWC] What a person’s medical insurance policy covers should be determined by the insured and the insurer, not by the government. As discussed above, the more stuff your policy covers, the more expensive it is.
“Then we would see if men liked their rights taken away. I bet there would be a lot of men changing their tune when this infringed on their sex lives.”
[RWC] To which “rights” does Ms. Thomas refer? While some religions oppose abortion and/or “artificial” contraception, I know of no laws (or plans for such laws) in the U.S. prohibiting the purchase, sale, or use of contraceptives. Whether you’re female or male, is Ms. Thomas telling us it’s a right to demand other people pay for your birth control choices?
“It’s a lot cheaper for our government to pay for contraceptives than supporting unwanted or sick children.”
[RWC] “[O]ur government” doesn’t pay for anything. Any money spent by the government is that which government first takes from our families’ paychecks, pensions, et cetera. Why should one person be forced to pay for another’s birth control choices? Beyond that, why would anyone want government to control their birth control choice? Remember, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
The “sick children” portion of this last sentence is troublesome. While you know if a child is “unwanted” long before conception, how can you tell if an unborn child will be “sick” before its conception? Prospective parents can go for gene testing, but my understanding is test results simply provide a risk factor, not a “go/no go” result. Perhaps I’m reading too much into this comment, but despite her earlier statement about abortion it appears Ms. Thomas is OK with abortion in the case of potentially “sick children.”
Finally, what did our ancestors do before the IUD (1929), “The Pill” (late-1950s/early-1960s), and other late-20th century contraceptives? Are we dumber and/or less responsible than our parents, grandparents, and so on?
© 2004-2012 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.