PDA

View Full Version : Laws targeting male repro rights!!



Isabeau Z Solace
Mar. 17, 2012, 01:49 PM
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/reproductive-rights-laws-against-men?src=soc_fcbk


"A bill in Virginia (which has already been shot down) proposed that men be required to get a rectal exam and cardiac stress test before they could get a prescription for an erectile-dysfunction drug like Viagra. They would also need to get a certificate from one of their recent sexual partners that states that they’re experiencing problems with erectile dysfunction, as well as be required to see a sex therapist before they can get a prescription."

I actually emailed a Thank You to the Senator involved, below is her reply. (bold is mine.)

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with me and for expressing your concern for these important women’s health issues. As we all know, this struggle is about equality: whether men and women should be given equal footing when it comes to making important healthcare decisions, and whether they should have equal access to the highest-quality health services our country has to offer. More importantly, this is about a woman’s right to choose. Reproductive decisions are best made by a woman and her doctor, and we must respect their ability to make these choices. Government has no place inside a woman’s womb.

This war on reproductive rights is an insult to women everywhere. It demonstrates that those waging it view women only as vessels of life—not as the intelligent and capable individuals that they are. Taking away the right to control one’s own destiny is not only un-American, it flies in the face of the ideals of independence and self-determination on which our nation was founded.

S.B. 307 is a serious bill, and the side effects of PDE-5 inhibitors are real. As a nation of equals, we must care just as much about men's health as we do women's health, and this is why we must take strong steps to protect against the harmful side effects of medications used to treat symptoms of male impotence, such as priapism, hearing loss, and vision loss. Such medications should be considered with the utmost concern and caution. These medications can be seriously detrimental to men with heart problems, including heart pain (angina), heart failure, abnormal heart rhythms (arrhythmias), high or low blood pressure, a history of stroke within the last six months, eye problems such as retinitis pigmentosa, sickle cell anemia, or leukemia.

Nobody laughs when legislators throughout the country introduce legislation that aggressively mandates government regulation of women's health decisions, and no one questions those who introduce these oppressive measures. This is no laughing matter. Women are being disregarded and disrespected by lawmakers across the nation. We must heed the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If women today, it will be another group tomorrow.

Thank you for being champions in the fight; the fight for our foremothers, for ourselves, and for our daughters. Spread this far and wide.

All the Best,


NINA TURNER
Minority Whip
Ohio Senate--25th District
1 Capital Square | Room 223
Columbus, OH 43215
614/466.8543
SD25@ohiosenate.gov

CosMonster
Mar. 17, 2012, 01:55 PM
That is great. The Viagra one is my favorite. Although I think it's absurd that we even have to have these satirical laws introduced, it does do a good job of pointing out the double standard.

I do worry a bit that the OK law mandating that men only ejaculate in a woman's vagina might go over well with some OK lawmakers though...those guys are like a living example of Poe's Law. They might look at it and go, "Well, it makes masturbation and homosexuality illegal so it's fine by us!"

Brooke
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:01 PM
Quote: I do worry a bit that the OK law mandating that men only ejaculate in a woman's vagina might go over well with some OK lawmakers though...those guys are like a living example of Poe's Law. They might look at it and go, "Well, it makes masturbation and homosexuality illegal so it's fine by us!"

WHAT? Is this for REAL? Unfreakingbelievable... And I thought the proposed AZ law was rediculous. I love the above proposed bill. Of course it didn't get far. Men in charge.

CosMonster
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:07 PM
Here's a link to the NPR article the Cosmo article in the OP cites. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/15/148695307/in-protest-democrats-zero-in-on-mens-reproductive-health) It describes several bills that female lawmakers have proposed to highlight the absurdity of laws like those defining legal personhood as beginning at conception (the OK law) and requiring a transvaginal ultrasound before providing an abortion (the Viagra law).

BaroquePony
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:12 PM
It's my understanding that Viagra is often found in "rape kits" (the kind of things they find rapists carry with them in a bag or kit, not the kind the hospital does after a rape vitim arrives at the hospital).

Yet, they don't want to allow women Morning After pills or other things.

happymom
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:12 PM
I think it's time to use our aspirin until a few men get real.
:mad:

snbess
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:16 PM
Excellent topic. I love Sen. Turner's response. Thank you for posting this.

whicker
Mar. 17, 2012, 02:44 PM
The unfortunate part is that a version did pass Virginia legislature. Even more unfortunately, I live in the district of the woman senator who introduced both bills. Her district is so gerrymandered for the republicans that it literally reaches from the Atlantic ocean to the Blue Ridge mountains. That is a long skinny shoelace district that covers several hundred miles. What is worse, she just got re-elected recently. Yes, I did vote. Not for her.

I expect that I'm going to busy this Fall campaigning to get moderates with brains in office.

Interesting note- She is a lawyer. How did she miss the equal rights and title 9 legislation???

Griffyn
Mar. 17, 2012, 11:38 PM
I thought it very tongue in cheek, hilarious and the very real threat to our reproductive rights and health care very serious, sobering and dangerously slippery slope.

Trakehner
Mar. 17, 2012, 11:57 PM
I think it's time to use our aspirin until a few men get real.
:mad:

I think you'd find most men saying, "so what, keep it to yourself, it's just not that special". Lysistrata made for a cute story, but in reality, with that attitude, you'd deserve to be alone.

Chall
Mar. 18, 2012, 12:19 AM
Oh the humanity!
Men should get checked out by a doctor for Viagra. It does have risks associated with it, especially cardiac risks. And it promoted like no other drug in history, which always is a concern.
I find it even more outrageous that they were proposing ( or passed) a law saying they were forgoing prostrate exams, and promoting "wait and see" treatment. Are you kidding? Do you think women would tolerate wait and see for breast cancer?

That Sandra Fluke testimony missed the point. Only pills are that expensive. Condoms are cheap, BC pills are not. But condoms protect a woman's health, IMO, better than birth control. Every one is so focused on not getting pregnant that they think they are covered with BC pills. With HIV and new antibiotic resistant Syphilis you can't just rely on BC pills. And the pill has health side effects as well. For a woman's HEALTH issues promoting the pill is short sighted.

Kementari
Mar. 18, 2012, 06:24 AM
That Sandra Fluke testimony missed the point. Only pills are that expensive. Condoms are cheap, BC pills are not. But condoms protect a woman's health, IMO, better than birth control. Every one is so focused on not getting pregnant that they think they are covered with BC pills. With HIV and new antibiotic resistant Syphilis you can't just rely on BC pills. And the pill has health side effects as well. For a woman's HEALTH issues promoting the pill is short sighted.

The Sandra Fluke testimony did not miss the point; those who didn't actually listen to/read it did. She spoke of the pill for other reproductive health issues - she told a story of a friend who had ovarian cysts, couldn't afford the pill, and ended up having to have an ovary removed. Condoms do NOTHING to help with that.

bumknees
Mar. 18, 2012, 06:35 AM
Dont get me wrong it is wonderful that they are thinking or even doing this to men now. Maybe now they will begin to think before trageting women If/when these bills pass...

But I am confused.. your location line says NJ, Somewhere va is brought into the mix.. Oh wait I see another bill... but the response from your email is from Ohio...

SimpsoMatt
Mar. 18, 2012, 12:39 PM
I think it's time to use our aspirin until a few men get real.


That's next month

http://www.noaccesssexstrike.org/index.html

Isabeau Z Solace
Mar. 18, 2012, 12:46 PM
Dont get me wrong it is wonderful that they are thinking or even doing this to men now. Maybe now they will begin to think before trageting women If/when these bills pass...

But I am confused.. your location line says NJ, Somewhere va is brought into the mix.. Oh wait I see another bill... but the response from your email is from Ohio...

Yes Senator Turner is from Ohio. I live in NJ. Other laws have been suggested in other states. I emailed Sen Turner to offer my thanks and support.


Love the way she thinks !!:cool:

CosMonster
Mar. 18, 2012, 12:58 PM
I think you'd find most men saying, "so what, keep it to yourself, it's just not that special". Lysistrata made for a cute story, but in reality, with that attitude, you'd deserve to be alone.

Hey, it worked in Colombia and Liberia at least. (http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/news/9525-2011-declare-now-or-we-go-on-sex-strike-women-tell-jonathan) The trick is to get every woman together on it. ;)

carolprudm
Mar. 18, 2012, 02:21 PM
But condoms protect a woman's health, IMO, better than birth control. Every one is so focused on not getting pregnant that they think they are covered with BC pills. With HIV and new antibiotic resistant Syphilis you can't just rely on BC pills. And the pill has health side effects as well. For a woman's HEALTH issues promoting the pill is short sighted.

Condoms do help protect a both partners from STD's but are not nearly as effective at preventing pregnancy. It has a 15% failure rate for typical use and a 2% failure rate for perfect use where as the combined pill is 8% and 0.3%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

Plus the pill is often prescribed for other conditions. I find it very distressing that Republicans want to allow church run businesses to refuse to prescribe C pills even for other uses.

supershorty628
Mar. 18, 2012, 02:57 PM
Condoms do help protect a both partners from STD's but are not nearly as effective at preventing pregnancy. It has a 15% failure rate for typical use and a 2% failure rate for perfect use where as the combined pill is 8% and 0.3%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control_methods

Plus the pill is often prescribed for other conditions. I find it very distressing that Republicans want to allow church run businesses to refuse to prescribe C pills even for other uses.

Yes!
I was put on the pill when I was in my early teens because without it, my period doesn't stop! After 46 days or something like that, I got put on BC because there was no slowing and I was starting to become anemic.

I pay for my pills almost fully - I think my insurance covers less than 1/3 of the total cost - and I'm fine with that... but I don't want people to try and take them away from me!

happymom
Mar. 18, 2012, 02:57 PM
Originally Posted by Trakehner
I think you'd find most men saying, "so what, keep it to yourself, it's just not that special". Lysistrata made for a cute story, but in reality, with that attitude, you'd deserve to be alone.

Isn't fact based non-emotional debate enlightening? It's the FOX mentality run wild!

:lol:

CosMonster
Mar. 18, 2012, 03:06 PM
Not to mention on the safety of hormonal BC, no responsible contraceptive provider would ever advise you to use it without a barrier method unless you're in a long-term monogamous relationship where both people have been tested for STDs. However, the actual use failure rate of condoms is around 12%, while the BC pill's is around 8%, and there are hormonal contraceptive methods which are almost impossible to screw up so have a perfect and typical use failure rate of as low as .5%.

Using hormonal BC as a backup to a barrier method like a condom is pretty standard for many women who are not in monogamous relationships, because condoms do break and if you have that hormonal backup you don't need to try to get Plan B or worry about pregnancy on top of the worry of STDs.

It isn't an either/or proposition. Preventing pregnancy and preventing STDs are kind of two different discussions, even though they're related. Anyone who is educated properly about sex fully understands that hormonal birth control won't protect you from STDs, and in fact every time I've gotten a new prescription the doctor has made a point of mentioning that it won't protect me from STDs.


I don't know how Viagra and rules surrounding it's prescription and use relates to male rights....

But I do know that medically, the doctor SHOULD be checking the man's heart and vascular systems very thoroughly before instituting a Viagra prescription. Viagra can have very serious consequences on cardiac health depending on the situation. It's a vasodilator and can cause a serious drop in blood pressure especially in men already taking nitrates. The drop in BP can become so severe that he could pass out or go into heart failure.

The point of these laws is that they're requiring an invasive exam (the prostate exam part) that is not medically necessary before prescribing the drug, just like the laws that have been passed requiring an invasive medical procedure (transvaginal ultrasound) before a woman can have an abortion whether it is medically necessary or not.

Totally agree that a man should have a checkup before getting a Viagra prescription, just like no one is arguing that a woman shouldn't be examined by a doctor before an abortion. Legally requiring an invasive and unnecessary procedure is a whole 'nother kettle of fish though.

Trakehner
Mar. 18, 2012, 07:49 PM
Isn't fact based non-emotional debate enlightening? It's the FOX mentality run wild!

How condescending and insulting...but then arguments based on emotion and feelings can't stand people who don't feel the same.

Uh, the emotional non-fact-based was the "keep my crotch to myself" aspirin tablet between the knees "threat" if a guy dared make her unhappy...which puts way too much value on the misperceived rarity of a sexual partner...which is neither rare or all that valuable.

Guys, like girls, will look elsewhere if they aren't valued at home. At 40, see who will get a date/married first...guy or girl? Look at any of the dating websites, they're mostly female. The market is glutted.

happymom
Mar. 18, 2012, 07:54 PM
Trakehner Quote:
How condescending and insulting...but then arguments based on emotion and feelings can't stand people who don't feel the same.

Goodness....there's that wild eyed emotionalism again!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Frizzle
Mar. 18, 2012, 09:05 PM
Love how government will pay for things like penile pumps for old men, but heaven forbid anyone have to pay for something (via taxes) involving women's sexual issues. I have a friend who used go work at a hospital in nearby affluent city, and she said a large percentage of the surgeries was men getting penile pumps, most of which were paid for by Medicare.

BlueEyedSorrel
Mar. 18, 2012, 11:36 PM
I am 2 months away from graduating with an MD degree. When it comes to the various states proposing required transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions, I see a problem with not just women's rights but interference in medical practice.

No reputable physician will do ANY procedure or prescribe a drug without doing the medically appropriate history, physical exam plus any tests he/she deems medically necessary and THEN explaining the potential benefits & risks of the proposed treatment. As I am so painfully aware, it takes a minimum of 7 years of training after college (4 years med school + at least 3 years residency) to be considered competent to do this without supervision.

Generally, society trusts that the profession is self-regulating in terms of the education and board certification of physicians and the details of how physicians practice. There is a presumption that a properly trained and educated physician will do things in a way that falls within the standard of care without the state having to pass laws to spell out the details. No state specifically mandates, for example, that your family doctor check your potassium before prescribing a diuretic or that your surgeon order a CT scan before taking out your gallbladder. There are procedures that carry a relatively high degree of risk (organ transplants, bone marrow transplants, brain surgery), and the state doesn't get involved in how consent for those procedures is obtained, either.

But for this one particular procedure, legislators with mostly NO medical training whatsoever decide that they know better than physicians who trained for close to a decade what pre-op tests are needed? And these are the same legislators who also get all upset about the "gubmint in our healthcare"?

I simply don't get buy the argument that this is about women's health. It's about control.
BES

Griffyn
Mar. 19, 2012, 04:49 AM
Thank you BES! Well stated.

bumknees
Mar. 19, 2012, 05:25 AM
First it is not ''the fox'' mentality it is the current far right mentality. the far right that has taken over the Rep party. Yes taken over. NOT all Reps are bible thumping screaching wack jobs who think that BC, abortions etc are bad and should never be used, done. Yadda yadda.. Some of us actually think there are times and places in which both are useful to the person who is requesting them. IE the old Rep party. I could easily say ot much of what comes out of the dem party is the CNN mentality ( ie the crazy news network the network that if it is a bad idea they love it for example obamacare). but back on topic...

I have often wondered why if a guy wants is medically he can get it but if a woman wants chances are it isnt covered.. Unless of course it is pleasing to the guy.. Believe it or not tricare even coveres some plastic surgery of the boobage.. And last I heard at some yes some not all; of the mtf's they will do some not necessarly medically necessary boobage jobs for prctice for those who loose theirs due to cancer, work( ie war, some other miliary accident not available to dependants but will practice on them) it may have changed by now I heard this about 9-10 yrs go...
I know for fact my dad who is closer to 80 than 60 has his little erection in a bottle I came across his script last time i was in his house a few years ago. which is just an image I could have gone the rest of my life with out having imprinted in my brain :eek: BUT.. Why do I need ot litterally have to sign my life away to for example I kid you not sign a STATE paper " Yes I am of sound mind'' paper no less than 30 days ya know just encase I change my fradgile little mind about it.. OR if my Legal Spouse changes my mind yes I do believe /think I read that somewhere as I hastly scanned through the paper scoofing thinking he would never he if ever wanted any ever again... To have a hysterecotomy...(sp) . Yeah basically that was this states compromise to what they had up to the mid 70's and I only know this due to my mom tellling me.. When a womand had ot go infront of a panel of Dr's who had the final say. And pled her case. Her dh had to go and say it was ok for her to have one. Her Dr had ot go in and sat he would do one. that Panel after all that still could say no. My mom said she had to go in 3 x's before they finally agreed and my younger brother came along between two of her appearances...

BES hate to tell ya but yeah there are some drs who will script meds with out doing all the work up that many feel should be done prior to writing that script. Just ask any kid on ritilian, or any other ADD drug if they had a neurological ( complete done by neurologists) work up after all it is a neurological problem.. most will say no because their dr got a call from either the school or the parent who got a call from school ( who have a habit of dxing the kid and pressuring the parent to put kid on drugs) to ''do something about kid who fiditeged(sp) or blinked to many times..."

onelanerode
Mar. 19, 2012, 06:25 AM
I simply don't get buy the argument that this is about women's health. It's about control.
BES

Precisely. But then, not wholly unexpected from people whose religious beliefs include men being the "head" of women (just as Christ is the head of the church, you know) and would like their religion to become our government. :no: