Psst, Big News for Women

--------PSSSST! --an even BIGGER secret:
Rockefeller/Stanford Research/RIIA-Tavistock engineered 'Sexual Liberation' ---IS---EUGENICS.
REALLY.

"These figures illustrate an enduring truth about women: We always have been able to think for ourselves.
Finally, we no longer will have to pay a penalty for our wise and responsible ways."

Livin' the dream, Schultz; Messin' around AND someone else pays for it. That is really the heart of this victory. Invite the government into our bedrooms. All these smart women can't handle the $600 per year. Now they can go to WalMart and use their EBT card while strolling the aisles on their government provided cell phone and yell "Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty it's free at last." It's always free if other people's money is being used. What we really neeed is mirrors on the debt ceiling. Psst is right.

Re: Tom

You don't think women should get birth control? Fine. You take charge of it. Pay for the sterilization--that's the only certain way for a man to keep a woman from getting pregnant.

Or give up having sex. We won't get pregnant thay way either.

At least you still have to dish outyour co-pay for your Viagra.

I'd rather take charge of my own health and reproductive choices, thank you. We aren't second-class citizens or slaves and it's time you stopped treating us that way.

Re Deborah

Is sterilization really the ONLY way for a man to keep a woman from getting pregnant? Limited view.

You give up having sex, my wife and I have taken care of the issue, and not one government cent went in to it. Our lives, our decision, our money. See the difference? That is taking charge.

I agree, let's get rid of the co-pay for viagra.

If someone else is paying for your life you cannot in good conscience claim to be in charge of your life. I'm not your tinancial sugar daddy, so stop treating me that way. Tell YOUR man to buy it for you. I don't want to pay for your "reproductive choices", so truly take charge and pay for it yourself. Stop treating other people like your cash cow. Then you will be in "charge" of your "reproductive choices".

Moo.

By thel way, Deborah, I don't know you and have never treated you as second class citizen or slave. Your arrogance in staining me with some "original sin" of your choice is arrogant and disgusting. If I were a timid little college student I might be muzzled by the cliche liberal college professor nonsense you barf out thoughtlessly, but in fact NO ONE is standing betwen you and your precious "reproductuctive choices". Just pay for them yourself. Then choose, choose, choorse. Choose until your head falls off, no one is stopping you.

"On average, women pay up to $50 a month for birth control pills, which is the most popular form of contraception. That's $600 a year. Compare that total with HHS' estimated cost of an uncomplicated pregnancy and childbirth: $7,600. Even a math-challenged journalist like me can calculate the bare-minimum savings of avoiding an unplanned pregnancy: about $7,000 in that year."

I'm sorry, is that $50/mo their co-pay, or the base cost? Because if it's the co-pay, how much money is the health insurance provider already covering? I know my wife gets $5 prescriptions for most drugs (she's not on birth control however), and so I'm wondering WHO pays this $50? Is it people WITHOUT health insurance or prescription plans? If so, how is this new law going to help them?

As a man, am I covered to buy condoms on prescription? I don't want to get some woman pregnant, and maybe my wife or girlfriend refuses to go on the pill or use an IUD (those are only recommended for women not wanting ANY more children, not 20-somethings looking to delay their parenthood till later in their life). Condoms would also lower the spread of disease, I'm sure my insurance provider doesn't want to pay for HIV treatments either.

Lets compare pills to condoms (if the desired result is birth control): both are about 99% effective. Some women are immune to the pill, but condoms do break (mostly when used incorrectly). However, condoms also prevent the transmission of STDs, the pill and IUDs do not. $50/mo for a prescription would instead buy you 100 trojan condoms at walmart (or even more if purchased in bulk on-line). That's sex 3-times a day. Even if you used the double-layer method (two condoms), that's still sex more than once a day. Even the most promiscuous individual would have a hard time using $50 worth of condoms a month. But clearly, birth control and the spread of costly STDs is not the goal here, it's pandering to the female vote (something that helped Obama in 2008).

Sure not everyone has a condom on them, and some women forget to take their pill, nothing is fool proof. Yes, this might reduce some pregnancies, but really, women who don't care, don't care. I've known more than one woman who just kept popping out kids because she really just didn't care. I know one woman with four kids under age 6 from four different fathers, and something tells me it wasn't the high price of birth control that led to her situation.

Face it, if you are an intelligent woman who doesn't want kids right now, you know how to avoid having those kids. If you are an ignorant woman who just doesn't care, they could pay you to take the pill, and you still might not do so (after all, food stamps and welfare probably pay more). Making it free doesn't mean you are going to go to a doctor and get a prescription then fill that prescription and take the drugs. It's our attitude, not our funds, that drive having undesired babies. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, guess what, there's a free method, it's called abstinence. If someone's desire to have sex outweighs their ability to care for a resulting pregnancy, that's their fault. I say you should have to get prior approval from your insurance provider to cover a pregnancy (like you do for many non-critical surgeries or long hospital stays). Pregnancy should be considered an elective procedure. You CHOSE to have a child (even if you didn't want one, you CHOSE to have sex), so why should the insurer be forced to cover that (most insurance doesn't cover cosmetic surgeries like boob jobs and face lifts for the same reason).

Oh but people have a right to have a child even if they can't afford to do so. Well, maybe the law should change, maybe if you can't afford to have a child, you don't get to keep it. Instead of paying welfare and food stamps and medicaid, we convert that money into giant government-run orphanages. You can't feed your kid or pay for their medical care, we'll take the kid from you. If they don't get adopted out, you're free to re-apply for custody when you've shown you can handle the responsibility. It's absurd that as a nation we are paying ignorant, unemployed men and women in this country to have children, and now we'll be paying those same people to have sex. Oh, but that will just encourage women to have babies more if they know that the government will take those kids away. Really, then lets make stricter childhood neglect laws. If you're child is taken away from you, you go to jail, with no conjugal visits. You can't have a kid if you can't have sex because you're locked in jail (and yes, we should jail the fathers too, I'm not just being hard on women here). Oh, but jails are already overcrowded, well jeese, it looks like our country is just going to hell and there's nothing we can do about it. But really, raising children in orphanages might deter crime because the children won't be observing their own parents commit crimes like theft and drug use. Less kids raised by criminals or in poverty will mean less criminals, so hopefully, prison residency will actually DECLINE over time. We pay more now for more benefit in the long run (kind of the point of paying for birth control, if I'm not mistaken).

I kind of agree with free bee on this one, it's a form of eugenics. I've been looking at this all wrong. If we pay the poor to use birth control, they'll produce less offspring, which will reduce the population of ignorant jobless who in turn have more children. It's quite brilliant now that I see it that way. Ok, I've changed my mind, lets start rounding up the poor and ignorant and sterilizing them. Leave reproduction to the intelligent elite who can afford to have kids.

Hey Connie, How about the government doesn't pay for the birth control, and it doesn't pay for the pregnancy or childbirth.... total cost $0. savings all of the way around. The person having the sex should be paying... or making sure they already have insurance that will cover it before sex. Personal responsibility.... pay your own way... what a concept.

I think there is some confusion here in the comments.

The government WILL NOT be paying for birth control for women. Instead, the Obama administration simply told insurance carriers to pick up the cost of the co-pay. Yes, the same insurance carriers that I pay $400 from each paycheck. I PAY THEM. I'm not asking anyone for a handout.

My own birth control method is a mere $11 at Wal-Mart, and I've always paid that entire amount because my insurance carrier refused to even cover it because of the "expense". The "approved" pill would actually cost me more in terms of a co-pay. Women who are breastfeeding often have to use a different, more expensive method. Women with allergies or side effects might have to pay more. I'm lucky. I can get the cheap kind, and I can cover $11 on my own.

Did I mention that I am a married woman? No shame in me getting down with my husband, right? So wouldn't it be cheaper all the way around for us to be careful about squirting out another kid, since if we do, we are likely going to need to go on government assistance? We are being RESPONSIBLE by not landing another urchin on you, the taxpayers.

I think the womans movement has really positioned women to have their cake and eat it too, they can choose to kill a child or to ruin a mans life, sounds like heaven for any woman, what a great selection you have awarded yourselves and shows where your priorities are. Excellent work, and bravo to you.

Re: Nerak

you say "I'm not asking anyone for a handout" but then you say "since if we do, we are likely going to need to go on government assistance? We are being RESPONSIBLE by not landing another urchin on you, the taxpayers". so which is it? Oh I get it, you don't ask for handouts you just expect the handout to show up when Darwin slaps you in the face. The day is coming when the government assistance will dry up and I will be laughing at you the starving people on the side of the road selling yourselves for a couple bucks because you never bothered to learn how to do anything of value, except do the nasty and pump out kids.