I know, but its fun to watch them dance.
Most healthcare insurance policies already pay for birth control pills and every single one of them already pays for every health exam a woman could ever have.
This is a scam, folks. A fantasy invention of the Democratic Party to convince those on the fence that the Republican Party is targetting women. Gimme' a break.
Well, on this message board, it may be fun to watch 'em dance, but in the real world? It's lies, deceit and manipulation of the worst kind. Politicians are whores.
So true. Find a wedge and drive it home.
Isn't the entire point of the BC hoopla that BC should be free like the air we breathe? No insurance necessary ... and if you don't agree, then you must be against women's rights and therefore a sexist who's against women.
Most healthcare insurance policies already pay for birth control pills and every single one of them already pays for every health exam a woman could ever have.
This is a scam, folks. A fantasy invention of the Democratic Party to convince those on the fence that the Republican Party is targetting women. Gimme' a break.
maggie, this is mostly in response to the abortion bills that have come out in the past year or so. don't tell me those bills are not targeting women, because they certainly are.
ED drugs treat real medical problems that aren't limited to the "elderly"--for example, many standard meds can cause ED--diuretics, anti-depressants, and blood pressure pills.
It's not just about older guys who've had prostatic cancer and loss function.
I'm looking forward to the older men (defined here as not 20-somethings, LOL) on this board putting to rest the idea that their sex drives have plummeted. And maybe their affirmation that being able to get it up is something they desire for themselves and not necessarily at the demand of wives who threaten to cheat.
I think it is a good idea. If controls women's bodies in relation to sexuality, government also should control men's bodies in relation to sexuality. The reason for proposing such legislation is to establish the Republican's legislation singularly targets women.
You do realize this is a false argument, republicans could give a **** if birth control is covered, what the problem is, is forcing a church who has a university to have BC paid for through thier health insurance.
The left is lying about the argument framing it the way you are framing it, in a ditch to scare people into voting for them. It is as transparent as day.
If that's all that Republicans care about, why did they file the Blount-Rubio amendment seeking to allow ANY employer to drop coverage for birth control?
Well, I'll "Like" that because I wasn't aware of it.
But the Blount Amendment actually says something to the effect that employers should not have to include specifics in their healthcare plan that they find objectionable. It had the support of four Democrats, by the way. Oh, and it was absolutely NOT limited to birth control or women's issues...any treatments they find objectionable.
How do we spell stupid? Blount Amendment.
This is alllll because of Obamacare mandating minimum coverage requirements. Nothing more.
it was in the op.........the trend has been to try to impose ridiculous abortion restrictions on women. the point is that abortion is a legal procedure and women DO have the right to privacy. that means it's unreasonable to expect a woman to undergo an unnecessary procedure to obtain one. so, why not force men to undergo unreasonable procedures to obtain a drug that enhances their sex life? point: men and women are stilled treated, and viewed, from a healthcare perspective, very differently, and that needs to end.
Its happening because of the whole contraception cluster**** with religious institutions and frankly I welcome it. The GOP has claimed (some at least) that there is no medical reason for female contraception and hence these female lawmakers are saying there is no medical reason for Viagra in most men. Now if a man does have a problem getting it up, then he should not only supply a legal document from a doctor and his wife, but also be subjugated to an invasive rectal exam to see if it is true. After all that is what the GOP wants to do with women in some states..
They should also target male masturbation, since that is killing babies as well and deserve just as harsh treatment as women getting an abortion.
How is ED treatment equivalent to abortion?
If that's all that Republicans care about, why did they file the Blount-Rubio amendment seeking to allow ANY employer to drop coverage for birth control?
I think that was explained in the quote you commented to. Both are issues of privacy and in the case of abortion forcing a woman to get an ultrasound is an unnecessary step. So forcing men to also undergo an unnecessary step shouldn't be a problem with conservatives who don't believe in privacy.
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men
Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner is the third female lawmaker to introduce a bill that would limit men's access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs to make a statement about the dozens of anti-abortion bills that have passed statehouses around the country over the last year.
Turner is opposed to a proposed bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Dayton Daily News reports that Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"
I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.
The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.
Possibly because it's elective? I think health care providers should be allowed to drop such elective coverage, creates competition wear if you are a single woman and prefer your sex unprotected, you can find an insurer who will.
This is awesome! The statement these lawmakers are making is of their supreme idiocy.
This would hurt women FAR more than it would hurt men, methinks. The only reason I would take viagra is to satisfy my wife. I can get an orgasm with or without. So the point is flatter than a brick.Its happening because of the whole contraception cluster**** with religious institutions and frankly I welcome it. The GOP has claimed (some at least) that there is no medical reason for female contraception and hence these female lawmakers are saying there is no medical reason for Viagra in most men. Now if a man does have a problem getting it up, then he should not only supply a legal document from a doctor and his wife, but also be subjugated to an invasive rectal exam to see if it is true. After all that is what the GOP wants to do with women in some states..
They should also target male masturbation, since that is killing babies as well and deserve just as harsh treatment as women getting an abortion.
My understanding is that lawmakers are supposed to represent all of their constituents, not just those of a particular race, religion or sex.
It's called payback's a bitch!!!
completely untrue, but thanks for the input.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?