nearly forty years passed, but who's counting?

I never thought contraception would ever be an issue that divided government policy in my lifetime. Not once. In fact, because of so many folks of the anti-abortion stance, I figured contraception was a win-win for both sides of the family planning argument.

Yet, despite all the hoopla over hormonal birth control these days, I still think it's what the general population wants. I mean, Rush Limbaugh does not speak for everyone. Rush Limbaugh speaks for himself, and sometimes, I even wonder if that's true. Forgive any mental image I afford you, but do you actually think Rush has mastered the pull-out method? Is this a man who refrains from sexual encounters with women? I'll bet money he's been with women who have not given birth to his spawn because of birth control medication that they had to go to the doctor to get a prescription for. His hateful tirade on Sandra Fluke, because of her testimony on behalf of women's health to make a case that insurance companies should pay for prescription contraception, was so absolutely ridiculous, I am now wondering why this man (if you can call him that) has not yet been fired. All of that coming from someone who curses drug abusers while doctor shopping for his own prescription addiction.

You know what? I bet those pain pills he was popping were paid for, at least in part, by his insurance company. And I don't even want to think about his Viagra, but if he does take it, I'm certain his insurance helps him pay for that, too.

Well, screw Rush Limbaugh. If there was ever a greater distraction from the real issue, he is it.

I have no idea how long contraception has been around. I'm not going to research the issue either, because I know that it's been around long enough to be generally accepted as okay for society. In fact, I think it's been regarded as good. To be honest, I don't really think the pill is great for women, as it disrupts their natural balance, controlling a cycle that has been in place for eons. However, that is my personal belief, and I would prefer for other women to make that decision for themselves, and to be legally allowed to do so. I would prefer that it also not be a financial obstacle for anyone either in need or desiring of it. And I would prefer that people not threaten its prevalence whilst pills for erections are still both allowed and financially covered.

If you want to make an argument to defund any means to assist in preventing pregnancy, then please include defunding a pill which specifically makes men able to be sexually active. Nuff said.

So why the big issue then? Rush Limbaugh's attacks may be the focus for some, but for me, it's a red herring. A giant flag waving amidst the combat-zone to deter eyes from the actual gunfire.

What's really happening, and bear with me, because I haven't gotten all of this figured out just yet, but what's really happening has much more to do with priorities than it does birth control. Virginia is in the midst of passing a law belittling women. Oklahoma and Texas have passed similar laws. Mississippi tried it, too. The Blunt-Rubio Amendment, albeit a disaster, really comes too close to the edge for many. See a pattern?

All of that is way more important than heartless and useless attacks from some sweaty, balding, super unattractive (in more ways than one), aging and outdated radio personality. This is a movement against women. A movement against commonsense. A movement against everything we have fought for and won in America's winding path to freedom for all.

If this isn't insurance companies lobbying against anything they think they can get away with not paying, then I don't know what is. Because of The Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are now forced to cover people, such as young adults until they reach the age of 26, that they wouldn't have had to cover before, so they're looking for ways to cut costs. Hey, lobbying is an art, folks. To think they aren't constantly coming up with new ways to avoid paying for something is naive at best. And if at least 90% of women use the pill, what better target? And what better way to justify not covering it than to say it's against religious freedom? Of course, they aren't saying it directly; that's the point of behind-closed-doors lobbying. It's just another way for Big Insurance to save money, and it's despicably obvious.

Really, they should be after drug companies, since they're the ones who jack medication prices up so callously that it should be criminal, but since they're all in cahoots together, there's no reason why they shouldn't pluck our so-called "morality" strings to really get the base jumping.

What a crock. I don't buy it.

Corporations are not people. They're a handful of cowards, each hiding behind the other, hoping their dirty money can lead the way for even fuller pockets.

Yeah, Rush Limbaugh may look like a jerk, but he's really a puppet, and the real crook is behind the curtain.

Just business as usual.

Comments 15 comments

Jed Fisher profile image

Jed Fisher 4 years ago from Oklahoma

Amen! But be forewarned, they are just getting started. The War on Men began in the 80s and has just now come to a successful close with 3% of America’s working-age men rotting in prison, with a large portion of free men holed up in their man-caves wondering what happened.

Certainly the War on Women has begun, the propaganda, the laws. First it was the satire of Desperate Housewives, and now the reality shows that make a mockery of women. Mob Wives the latest, but there will be more. Women running for high office ridiculed as witches (O’Donnell) or labeled just plain crazy (Bachman) or called stupid outright (Palin). And now they examine what matters most to women and make laws against it.

When they attacked men, they made wistful glances at cleavage into a sexual harassment felony.

Good luck, Women, my heart goes out to you. Win this fight and maybe Men can figure out how to get their rights back too.


HSchneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Excellent Hub, Bedegroat. I totally agree. This new Far Right Neanderthal Republican party is frightening. I do not understand how women ever vote for Republicans any more. They have incredible arrogance trying to tell women how they should handle their bodies and lives.


seo guru profile image

seo guru 4 years ago from Chicago Area

I just do not understand how this argument gets so convoluted. This issue is not about whether contraception should be allowed, used, sold, manufactured or even exist. You are talking the propaganda and not paying attention. The argument is mandating that insurance companies or religious organizations must provide it free of charge. I just don't understand why any one man or woman would think it is okay for the government to tell any private company they have to give a product away. Let's put this onto another industry, let's say that all furniture companies are mandated they have to give away chairs to anyone who wants them, or auto companies are told they have to do oil changes for free for the life of the car. It is patently ridiculous, there is nothing free. If the furniture company was forced to manufacture and then give away chairs they would charge everyone buying a couch considerably more, same in the other example, if oil changes were forced free, then the cost of tires or tune ups would soar. So the issue is why are companies being told they have to give contraception away free, no co pay, no co-insurance free. This while discriminatory in nature because it only applies to women will have the unintended consequence of making my insurance, and your insurance and every one else's insurance costs go up. And why, women are free to use contraception now, they are just asked to pay for it them selves. How is this an attack on women. And just for the record I read an article the other day that stated 75% of women use contraception now, and they are paying for it, so why does this become a public issue during an election year, when it has no merit what so ever, and who created the public issue by deploying the mandate that something already offered, available and in mass use now has to be provided free of charge, knowing it would create the debate they could turn into an attack on women. It is just insane, the government does not have the legal right to tell a private company they must provide a certain product at their expense free. If they want to provide contraception free, then by all means have the government open centers all over the country and do so, this would make it a non issue for all.


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

seo, if you read my article, you'd understand that i covered all aspects of the contraception issue, including the fact that insurance companies don't want to issue it free of charge.

free birth control, which is the case in many other countries, would make women choose more reliable forms.

here's an article that explains the whole issue, if you read all of it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-7010471.html

but here are the points about the health issue, and YES, it is a women's health issue:

"(Free contraception) would remove a cost barrier that may be keeping women away from more reliable long-acting birth control, and also affects those who don't do well on inexpensive generics.

A major research study now taking place in St. Louis provides a glimpse of how things might change.

The Contraceptive CHOICE Project is providing free birth control to as many as 10,000 women, tracking their decisions and the results. About 70 percent have chosen long-acting contraceptives such as IUDs (intrauterine devices) or implants, which are reversible and have a much lower failure rate than pills or condoms. The proportion of U.S. women using such methods remains low; part of the reason seems to be higher upfront cost.

"The shift we need to see in the United States is a shift away from methods like the pill and condoms to the most effective methods, like implants and IUDs," said Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a principal investigator on the study. "And we'll only see that shift if somebody is willing to pay for it." "

also, you're comparing birth control to furniture?


Georgelower profile image

Georgelower 4 years ago

Actually, I believe Rush Limbaugh is self insured. He doesn't carry home owners insurance or medical insurance and carries no debts of any kind...so your analogy is flawed. Second, the point you raise in the above comment is actually the POINT of this whole fiasco...The Obama administration is advocating for subsidizing an entire industry of contraception services...this isn't about making contraception cheap and affordable (it already is)...it is about CHANGING women's behavior so that they CHOOSE a particular form of contraception. I wonder how many friends Obama has in that industry? No one is asking that question....and they should. This is not about women's health this is about propping up an industry that has a particular political agenda...at the expense of the religious conciences of people who actually help poor women and children and have been doing so for many centuries without a political agenda of any kind.


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

send me proof that Rush Limbaugh has no commercial insurance whatsoever and that he pays for all of his healthcare needs out of pocket. otherwise, my analogy is sound.

birth control that is more reliable is expensive. condoms and the pill are cheap. by making birth control free, women will have access to better forms of it. they don't HAVE to, but it's there if they WANT it.


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author


Georgelower profile image

Georgelower 4 years ago

bedegroat...not be argumentative but I personally know his property manager...which is where I got my information. So based upon what I know...your analogy is flawed. Someone with Rush Limbaugh's wealth has no need for insurance...they are self-insured.

So you are admitting that this is not about providing access to birth control...but an attempt to market and promote a particular form birth control i.e.iuds, hormone implants, etc. I'm sure this is all based upon objective science and has NOTHING to do with directing profits to Obama's cronies...


seo guru profile image

seo guru 4 years ago from Chicago Area

Just read this article written in Forbes magazine. The average cost of contraception is $9.00 a month, so tell me how this is a $3,000 expense over three years. And I am posting the link because as usual unintended consequences will prevail and the cost to those who have to buy it will go up dramatically if provided free by insurers.

read this please

http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/06/the-bi...


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

George - it's an article about my thoughts on the matter, so of course it's not objective science! but alas, i'm not so sure the President is profiting from free contraception.

also, i apologize, and mean no disrespect, but saying my analogy is flawed based on what you personally know but cannot prove, doesn't really mean much to me.


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

seo - thanks for the article. and, i'm sorry, were you implying i mentioned anything about $3,000?

the article tells us to be prepared for multi-million dollar commercials for contraception, yet not only are there already commercials for it, but there are multi-million dollar commercials for beer! and comparing birth control to air conditioning? really? even in Saharan temperatures, i think people would still have sex and not want babies.

believe me, i see the point of the dude who totally wrote that Forbes article. love the avatar of him with his tie so loosely around his neck (super cool). but if insurance companies benefit from free contraception, and so does everyone else, then what's the big deal? i really don't think it's a huge crisis for companies to cover this. especially since it's so cheap to produce. i don't understand why free contraception is such a terrible thing.

and you know what? multi-million dollar commercials create jobs!

oh the sarcasm!

seriously though, if anything, we should make it free for people who really can't afford it. i mean, telling someone they should abstain from sex if they can't afford contraception is such an astounding argument in today's society, it's almost inhuman.


seo guru profile image

seo guru 4 years ago from Chicago Area

The cost of contraception per the article is $9.00 a month, the whole brew aha started when Ms Fluck claimed it cost her $3,000 for three years and affected her ability to pay other expenses. That was my point.

And truly I think contraception should be provided to those who want it, they are using it now, I just am against our government mandating a private company do the providing. And by the way for those in need it is already offered at free clinics throughout the country. Again my argument is not the use, availability or the choice, just the method used to mandate it. And what I found most interesting about the article was the unintended consequence of low cost contraception being eliminated since there will be no market demand to keep the cost down. And the recipient of the benefit of this is the drug companies who will receive enormous windfalls as a result of that consequence.

Believe me I am very conservative fiscally but moderate socially and believe we as a society should help those in need, but nothing is free, someone is paying for it


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

seo - Fluke could've been talking about contraception that costs more than $9 a month. it does exist.


Georgelower profile image

Georgelower 4 years ago

LOL..fair enough bedgroat...but I didn't say that Obama was personally profiting from free birthcontrol...I implied that he may be engaged in rigging the market place to favor certain players...it isn't like there is no precedent for this kind of behavior (remember Soladyne?)...to be fair both political parties play at this game...so I'm not slamming Obama for doing something that every other President has done since the founding of the Republic...but I'm also not implying that he should be commended for it either.


bedegroat profile image

bedegroat 4 years ago from who knows! Author

i don't think it's possible to commend Obama for doing something you merely suspect but cannot prove.

this article began because i was wondering why the sudden War on Contraception, reading up on the issue, and speculating on the possible true nature of it. that is all.

oh yeah, and blasting Limbaugh...

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working