Obama's contraception rule

[BlingLoving]

I only just read about this debate in America about obama's attempt to make employers include contraception in their healthcare plans. The catholic church is outraged and he has had to compromise slightly.

When reading about it, my overwhelming thought was about how this is a huge issue for women and why is the debate about politics. I read three or four articles first but then had to google the story including the word feminism to come up with a single article debating the issue as a feminist one.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201202111000--tms--msanchezctnms-a20120211feb11,0,4972306.column.

How is it that in the 21st century, when an entire law is about women, the media and politicians are notb even discussing or acknowledging a women's perspective.

And on a side note, while I don't usually indulge in church bashing, the catholic church's dogmatic approach to women generally and contraception particularly infuriates me.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201202111000--tms--msanchezctnms-a20120211feb11,0,4972306.column

Anything to do with family planning is political in the USA. It's just different from here, as with so many things.
And since when was contraception all about women? I'm guessing that if the proposal is to include female sterilisation in insurance plans, then vasectomies will be, too?

I think Obamas workaround is quite clever actually, and flicks the finger at the pro life lobby.

Contraception wasn't covered in healthcare plans before now?? I had no idea! So people had to pay for it themselves?

The commentary is focussing on the massive question of the future of health provision and the economics of theta in the US. It's a make or break issue for Obama, especially with coverage of presidential primaries showing a harsher light on his survivability.

Contraception will continue to be freely available. In some cases (but not all, as now) it may be paid for. It's not a big issue in the press because it's not a big issue.

(I meant of course that the change wasn't a big issue, not the availability of contraception - which is unaffected or improved by this measure).

Yes, as I recall, most health insurance plans in the US don't cover prescriptions for contraceptives let alone sterilisation or abortion. About 15 years ago, a friend of mine told me she paid the equivalent of about £25 a month for her pill, so heaven knows what it costs now.

There are not-for-profit organisations like Planned Parenthood that provide contraceptions at a highly subsidised rate, but they tend only to be available in major cities. Where I come from, you'd have to drive about 2 1/2 hours to the nearest Planned Parenthood facility, so your only option really is forking out the cost yourself.

My brother is self employed so has always paid top whack premium for health insurance with lots of conditions not covered (else it would be even more expensive.) So, he and my SIL had to pay form their own pockets for the birth of each of their DCs. I wonder what would have happened if they'd not been able to pay the bill? Would the DCs have been repossessed or something?

Anyhoo yes, contraception is VERY highly politicised in the US, and it's not just the Catholic Church that tries to restrict access through intensive lobbying. There are other very powerful, wealthy fundamentalist Christian organisations that are in the frame as well. It can be pretty shit basically, particularly if you live in a conservative area (Doctors might not prescribe you contraception, and would go apoplectic if you even enquired about abortion!) and/or far from an urban area.

Reason number 52 why I don't live there anymore! :-)

That is just madness.

You'd think that the anti-abortion lot would be very pro-free-contraception. If you want there to be fewer abortions, help people to not get pregnant in the first place.

Sadly the logic doesn't quite seem to work that way.