Short: Hooray for fewer teen moms

When I was growing up middle-class, white, and college-bound, I knew to  be terrified of unintended pregnancy. There was no faster way to derail my plans for life, not to mention get either kicked out of the house or permanently locked in the attic.

Somewhere in the last few decades, teenagers lost their fear of pregnancy. This was definitely not a good thing. These days kids aren't usually 1) forced into marriage, or 2) locked away or sent away for the duration, or 3) blackened forever by the shame they bring on themselves and their families. However, life plans are definitely derailed, at least for a while. Shouldn't this be enough to make them very careful? Apparently not.

The good news is that teen pregnancy has dropped dramatically since 2009. This article discusses some of the possible reasons, but nothing is definitive. Maybe it's the use of IUDs (previously not recommended until after the birth of a child). Maybe it's the reality shows like Teen Mom which show the heap of troubles involved with trying to manage a baby, high school, parents, and a barely-committed baby-daddy. Maybe it's the recession, which has been so hard on families that teens actually figure out that they shouldn't make it worse.

Whatever made teens think harder about being careful, I'm grateful for it, and I hope the teens are too.

Image: msnbc.com

Denying Contraceptive Coverage is Slut-Shaming

First, I'm sorry that this topic is getting so many posts, but there is a good reason. This is one of the few issues where it's possible to nail down the logic and see it for what it is.

People who argue against contraceptive coverage fall into three categories:

1. Those who are against ALL drug coverage, but make the mistake of focusing on contraceptives. 
2. Those who don't want any of their money to go to subsidized contraceptives for parasites who are probably irresponsible sluts.
3. Those who follow religious tenets against the use of contraceptives. 

I'm giving category #1 people the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to identify them. If you ask, why should contraceptives be any different from, say anti-cholesterol drugs, they readily agree that they shouldn't.

For category #3 people, I have to argue that their church's tenets are misguided and/or outdated in this age where we have over 7 billion people thronging the Earth. Also, they cannot and should not force their church teachings on employees. Do they make their employees swear religious oaths? No. So keep religion out of healthcare also.

But a lot of religion tenets come down to category #2, which is disapproval of sex. Often it's clothed as disapproval of wanton, irresponsible sex, but when you scratch the surface, it's a general disapproval of sex.

Image: politicalfun.blogspot.com

However, it makes no sense for this disapproval of wanton sex to apply also to contraceptives. These are used mostly by very responsible people for responsible purposes. Just because prostitutes and sexually adventurous people also use contraceptives, that doesn't make contraceptives evil. Prostitutes and the unchaste also drink water for the same reasons the rest of us do, but we don't have religious prohibitions against water.

So there's no logical reason to deny contraceptive coverage--unless I've missed some other argument. If that's the case, I apologize. However, I really doubt that there is any other argument.

Slut or responsible person?

Image: thebottomline.as.ucsb.edu

Update 1/31/14. Answer to O'Reilly's questions above: No, Bill, I want you to shove that money so far up your ass that it comes out your foul mouth. Plus, I hear you're quite a slut yourself.

The GOP in their contraceptive corner

OK folks, I hope this is the last thing I'll say about the GOP and contraceptives. These guys have really been idiots about contraception. Contraception is a good thing. It lets you have sex with your spouse (something you looked forward to for all or most of your adolescence) without fear of having way too many children that you can't afford. If you're not married, it lets you have sex without fear that you'll have to rush into marriage due to pregnancy or have that awkward child-sharing relationship fraught with disagreements, resentment, and discomfort, which will deeply harm your kid. Or you won't have to make that painful decision to have an abortion because you're not a selfless saint who can deal with pregnancy and giving up the kid. (Aside--who is the patron saint of unwed mothers? Was she an unwed mother, or is he or she another figure to make them feel ashamed.)

Image: east2west.org

So, that's the short version of my case for why CONTRACEPTION = GOOD.

Now, how did the GOP ever embrace the idea that contraception isn't good? I don't know, so I'm going to speculate. Contraception was traditionally outlawed because of some arcane reasons probably having to do with male control and women being in subservient positions. So maybe the GOP, being the party of traditional values, doesn't like the modernity of contraception.

They probably don't like that it gives people more freedom for sexual experimentation, though anyone who's realistic should still appreciate its usefulness for married couples. So perhaps the prudish side of the GOP has won out, and they disapprove of contraception because sluts use it.

Perhaps the GOP has decided to hate everything connected with Planned Parenthood, and that would include contraception. In the same vein, they may have decided to be against everything that the Democrats are for, thus they're against both contraception and Planned Parenthood.

Whatever the bizarre reason that the GOP became the party against contraception, they really need to stop this nonsense. Romney helped when he stated in a debate: "I don't know any state that wants to ban contraception, George." Unfortunately, that was the high point of GOP support for contraception. Weak sauce.

What the GOP needs to do now is to turn the tide and get a lot of prominent Republicans to say that they have indeed used contraception and it's great--it worked really well and they're happy with the results and they had the children when they wanted. Maybe that would remind the loony Republicans to just shut up. Furthermore, perhaps someone will take the loony Republicans into some back room and explain that slut-shaming over contraception might make them feel haughty and superior, but that it's downright stupid as elections go.

OK, yes, I want to be the person who tells the loony Republicans how stupid they are. Rant over... I hope.

(Not an actual quote.)

Image:  suyts.wordpress.com

Extra. Even when intelligent conservatives talk about this, they still end up getting it wrong. Many are against the landmark decision Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court told states to stay out of people's bedrooms. To many conservatives, this was a bad decision because it opened the door to legalization of abortion, gay sex, oral sex and other forms of sex previously called sodomy, and cohabitation. But Griswold v. Connecticut was decided rightly--the state should stay out of your bedroom. I think the majority of Americans strongly agree with that. 

The Controversy in My Medicine Cabinet

There shouldn't be a controversy in my medicine cabinet. It's my medicine cabinet. It's between me and my doctor what goes in there. There are all these HIPAA regulations that are supposed to protect the privacy of my medical information, presumably including what my doctor prescribes.

So why would anyone care if I have an anti-cholesterol drug in my medicine cabinet? Why should my employer care? Why the hell would my employer go out of his way to complain about me getting this drug, and that some tiny bit might be paid for by him. It's OK if I use my salary to pay for it, but horrible if it's part of my benefits package. Does that make any bloody sense? No, it doesn't.

I am so tired of some people thinking I'm a freeloader because my anti-cholesterol drug is covered in my health plan. Limbaugh thinks I'm some sort of slut because of it, and he demands I upload porno to him.

Now Mike Huckabee is saying something too. He seems to think that I should be offended that my health plan covers my anti-cholesterol drug, because that means they don't think I'm mature enough to handle it on my own, or some such nonsense. Hell, no, I'm glad that they cover the drug, like the rest of my medical needs. Why should I be 'outraged' as Huckabee suggests?

I'm supposed to be outraged at the Democrats for supporting coverage for this medicine, but that doesn't wash either. I don't see how Huckabee can contend that my health plan and the Dems think I'm sort of slut. All they're doing is supporting me when I say "I'm glad my health plan covers this medication."

It seems to me that it's the Republicans who think it's kind of slutty or dirty that I might have anti-cholesterol medication. It's certainly a pretty common med--lots of people use it. Since when did it become slutty?

So to all the Republicans and their dittohead army, would you please shut up about my anti-cholesterol med? You sound very creepy when you get that involved in my medicine cabinet.

Stay out of my medicine cabinet.

Image: laprogressive.com

Extras. Huckabee is raising funds based on this. Some pundit thinks the big problem is that Huckabee is hypocritical about the issue, not how intrusive he is. I disagree. And then there are the idiots who think Huckabee nailed it--that Dems do think I'm a slut. Wrong!

According to Rush: Planned Parenthood

After my loads of research on Rush Limbaugh, I have several fascinating stories still to share. This is the first of the addendums.

A woman caller had this question: "Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?"

Now, this is interesting. The Limbaugh line on Planned Parenthood (PP) is that their one interest is abortions. Yet this listener noticed an odd dissonance. If PP is all about abortion, why would they support contraceptives? After all, if contraception, such as the morning-after pill, is effective, you don't need abortion, so there are fewer abortions, and that is counter PP's mission.

This listener doesn't see that Limbaugh has been feeding her and all listeners a crappy half-truth. That possibility hasn't entered her mind, but she does pick up on this inconsistency, so she calls Limbaugh (the educator, the answer-man, the voice of conservatives) for an explanation. Limbaugh asks her to take her best guess for the reason, but she muffs it. So he steps in and builds the story:

CALLER: I had two questions for you. Number one: Why is Planned Parenthood supporting the Plan B pill in the first place? Won't it cut down on abortions?

RUSH: Well, great question. You want to try taking a stab at answering it yourself? 

CALLER: ...They're mad at the Obama administration for doing away with it, so they're playing it both ways. 

RUSH: Well, that could be. But what does Planned Parenthood stand for?

CALLER: Abortion.

RUSH: Women aborting babies, however they do it. However they do it. Other than the back alley, however they do it. So the thing is if the morning-after birth control pill at age 15 conditions women, "This is no big deal!" Planned Parenthood would have to support it. Look, liberals are liberals first. Abortion is the sacrament. If you look at liberalism as a religion, abortion is the sacrament. So whatever moves the agenda forward is okay, and this moves the agenda forward.

The agenda forward is women having abortions, whenever, however... It is true that the Plan B morning-after pill will impact the Planned Parenthood bottom line. So it just means that they'll go into the manufacturing business, or they'll invest (chuckling) in pharmaceuticals. I don't know. It's a great question, but the answer is: "Hey, what's the objective? Abortions!"

So there is the dissonance, but Limbaugh papers over it with the affirmation dogma that PP is all about abortions. In the real world of honest discussion, someone would explain that PP's goal is not just to perform abortions, but to give people, mostly women, the tools to manage when to have children. When that's the goal, there is no disconnect between providing contraception and providing abortion.

However, in Limbaugh's world, and according to many conservatives, abortion is the only reason for PP, so there is this inconvenient fact that PP also supports contraception like Plan B. Limbaugh can't explain it on his own terms, so he gracefully punts. I don't know if his audience notices or not. The caller doesn't get another word, so we don't know if she found the answer convincing or not.

Limbaugh goes on to criticize PP for falsely hiding its mission (abortion per Limbaugh) with the name 'Planned Parenthood:'

RUSH: Now, I know. I know there are people in this audience who cannot possibly think I really mean that. Folks, not only do I really mean it, it's true. Don't blame me if you can't get your arms around that. There are over a million abortions a year. Planned Parenthood supports them and performs them. It's not even controversial to say that what Planned Parenthood is about is abortions and as many as possible...

When I first heard of Planned Parenthood, to show you how the left uses the language, I thought it was exactly what it says: Planning parenthood. I was very young. I was in my teens, early twenties. I thought you went to Planned Parenthood and they would help you plan your family, help you deal with the economics of it and raise a family...

That's not at all what they do. They want people to think that. So when somebody like me comes along and points out what they really do, people say, "No, no, no! That can't possibly be!" Some people don't even want to conceive that that's what they do, but it is. This is the cross that I bear: Bringing the truth to people that they may not want to hear. Therefore it makes me "divisive." -- emphasis added

Ah, Rush, you were so naive when you were young. You imagined that Planned Parenthood  helped you get a job and manage your money, maybe get an affordable apartment or house for your family. But delaying having children wasn't part of your vision for how to plan your family. To think, PP manipulated language to make you think they are a helping organization. And all the time, they're only about abortions. Thank God for Rush, and his willingness to bear the cross and tell the truth. I hope he can continue with his sacrifice and his truth-telling mission... all the way to the bank, since he isn't going to earn any honesty awards.

Inconceivable--One of 11 categories of PP services

Image:  plannedparenthood.com

Recommence circular firing squad

So today Reince Priebus released the report on post-mortem on how the GOP lost the 2012 election. I thought it was a surprisingly realistic first step for the GOP, who haven't been exactly clear on the objective world for the past two years.

Some ideas I agree with:

• Don't piss off women so much. They're not just vessels for babies... now that they have the vote.. and jobs.. and that damned independent streak. They have less time for news (due to tons of other responsibilities), but word does get around if a party doesn't care whether women get contraception or not. Lots of women pay attention to that.
• Be welcoming to minorities. This will be harder because the GOP is the epitome of a white men's country club. Sure, there's room for a few more tokens to get up on stage and milk the party for support. But how many minorities are eager to sign up after watching the disrespect leveled at Obama and Holder and Sotomayor. Even white males who step out of bounds are hunted down like (as) RINOs. This is not a tolerant party. Good luck on winning skittish minority voters.
• Pass immigration reform. This could be a no-win situation for the GOP. Latinos aren't voting for Republicans in large numbers because the GOP are nasty to immigrants, who are largely Latino. But if there's a path to citizenship, that will mean more lower-wage and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. Tough dilemma--do you take the risk and try to turn it around? Or do you hold tight to principles and circle the drain?
• Shorter primary with fewer debates. Those debates did show the country a lot, including that audiences could be stacked, or they may be just a bunch of random yahoos. But it certainly was a pander-fest. A shorter campaign would help a little, but the bigger problem is pandering to the shrill conservative media. I don't think there were many suggestions about that.

The response from parts of the conservative spectrum were much uglier than my reaction. Limbaugh says "I’m sorry, but we’re not disrespectful to anybody." HAHAHAHA. Rush is personally disrespectful to the vast majority of humanity, so let's just say that he's so acclimated to disrespect that he doesn't smell it anymore.

It looks to me as though Priebus's outreach to the Ron Paul liberty wing is falling flat. You really need to read the hair-raising comments here. They include throwing someone under a lawnmower, stabbings, kissing back sides, and a few Jew comments too. But definitely, there is no way the Paul wing is going support fewer caucuses, another Priebus proposal. The base at HotAir isn't happy either, with the general sentiment being that it's another way for the establishment to muzzle the base.

I won't tell the GOP what to do. They aren't my party, and I've learned from experience that you can't manage anyone else's life from the outside. I hope they make decisions that are beneficial for them and for the country as a whole, whatever those decisions will be. So, best of luck, GOP. Try not to screw it up.

How the hell do I fix this?

Image: go.bloomberg.com

Extras. An insider at The Weekly Standard has written a moderate-length analysis of the GOP problem with a suggested, but unlikely, solution. A shorter version here to whet your interest.

The HotAir bloggers support the gist of the post-mortem. The commenters want to hang the traitors to GOP principles.

Erick Erickson at RedState: 'Meh. It just wasn't our year.' This response confuses me because it's completely anti-analytical.

Getting Married: To have sex or to have babies

I just realized something. The proponents of traditional marriage who say that the purpose of marriage is to provide a good environment for children are ignoring an important point in marriage traditions. Traditionally, you had to get married before you could legally have sex with the object of your desire. So the purpose of marriage was to have sex. If the sex didn't occur, that is, if the marriage wasn't consummated, the marriage could be annulled as though it had never happened. The lack of offspring wasn't enough to annul a marriage, but the lack of sex was.

Now a vast majority of Americans are having sex before marriage. So we don't need to get married to have sex. I think this is why marriage is breaking down in the US. The problem was that sex outside marriage destabilized marriage for many people.

Then again, I don't think that's the reason. Over 95% of Americans are having pre-marital sex, but 95% of marriages haven't destabilized.

More likely is that when society became more accepting of sex before marriage, it also became more accepting of other changes to tradition:

• Divorce
• Delayed marriage
• Delayed childbearing through contraception
• Voluntary childless marriages
• Alternative sexual positions and techniques
• Sequential relationships and sex partners
• Dating and having sex concurrently with multiple partners (but not too many)
• Raising children outside marriage
• Getting married after the birth of a child
• Women having both careers and children
• Women in high-commitment jobs

Gosh, with all those other changes, accepting same-sex relationships and marriage doesn't seem like such a big deal. After all, it's apparent traditional lost a long time ago.

This isn't the first time tradition has been challenged. Think of the play The Fiddler on the Roof. It's all about Tevye's daughters breaking the tradition of arranged marriage. Maybe the lesson is that people accept the non-traditional when they see good aspects to the change.

You may now kiss the bride and finally have sex with her.

Photo: some twitter thing

Extra: Heavens! Changes to the Nuptial Mass are arcane to the rest of us.

Silly Power Games

Yesterday 43 Catholic organizations filed suit against regulations from the Obama administration mandating contraceptive coverage in healthcare plans that cover other prescription drugs. Commenting on the news story, I wrote:

"This is happening because there’s a silly contest over who has power on this issue: the government or religion. It’s definitely not the people or the employees whose voices are being listened to."

John Powers rightly questioned me:

"Tell me again why your defending First Amendment rights is a 'silly contest'? Keeping the Government out of Churches has always sounded like a good reason to have a Bill of Rights. Freedom of Religion is a fundamental right in the United States, regardless of the voices of the 'people or the employees.' "

So this is my fuller explanation:

@John Powers, when churches stick to being churches, the government leaves them alone. When they become big employers, government is right to get involved in ways they are involved with other businesses/employers. But the churches-cum-employers then try to hide behind first amendment/freedom of religion, when, really, they just aren’t being allowed to conduct their employee relations the way they want. Maybe the churches want to avoid minimum wage or overtime laws too.

Are you really sure that freedom of religion is a free pass for corporate religions to do whatever they want? Maybe freedom of religion is an individual freedom, not carte blanche for organizations to ignore all government rules. I see more than one principle involved here, so it’s a balance of competing rights and principles, not just freedom of religion, as you say.

The reason this is a silly contest is that the Catholic Church in this country has lost the argument about contraception with its own adherents, yet the Church continues to pretend that contraception is so wrong that it can’t countenance including it in comprehensive medical plans. On the government side, it’s silly to mandate insurance coverage for pills that cost $9 a month at Walmart (not a myth–I looked it up). Yes, it is silly to anyone not wrapped up in the power play.

 Who is sillier?

Photo: fanpop.com

The Catholic Mistake

Although I'm an agnostic, I'm fairly supportive of religion. I appreciate the sense of a higher mission and the way it inspires so many people. So when I speak against a religious precept, it's with a heavy heart.

I love people, but I love all living things more. Life is the most precious gift in the world, but I don't limit my love to human life. My soul soars at the sight of a majestic tree and I chuckle at the odd shapes of lichens.

Out of respect for all living things, I'm firmly against the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, and especially on birth control:

Contraception is wrong because it's a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. . . God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

For most of our lives, the procreative aspects of sex are superfluous or unwanted. I disagree with Catholic Church philosophy on this point. I place more emphasis on the scientific viewpoint than on odd conceptions of "Natural Law," which we break all the time with lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration, and the many benefits of modern medicine.

Another scientific point is that the world is already supporting a vast number of humans, and there definite benefits to limiting the surging growth. Countries with unrestrained growth due to religious and cultural teachings against birth control include Egypt, Haiti, and the Philippines. These can be horrendous places to live, especially if you're poor. I think the religious teaching against contraception are largely to blame.

Other lesser arguments are:

•  Contraception allows people to be unfaithful.  (So I can't use it because cheaters might? Thanks a bunch.)
• Loose sexual behavior will pervade society as a result. (True, but that is an individual choice.)
• Men will view women as sex objects if there's birth control. (I believe this can happen with or without contraception, so it's a wash.)

Another argument that the Catholic Church makes:

... it harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of human life.

Excuse me, but I don't accept that God is the sole entity that should determine whether or not I become pregnant. I'd like to have a huge role in that decision.

One of the most egregious arguments against contraception dates from 307A.D.:

... Some "complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife."

Spare me the pontificating about the sovereignty of God and how God will provide (if He wants). I want the responsibility for my children, and I want to raise them well. Just don't tell me how many to have. Don't tell me that if I don't want a child at this particular time, I should keep an aspirin between my knees. I'm not a monk or nun, and I want the modern conveniences, including contraception.

So, I believe, by all means, subtract the procreative aspects from the sex act. You're not hurting the world or yourself or God.

Every sperm is sacred: All male panel testifies about contraception.

Thanks to Viable Opposition for the link to Catholic doctrine.

Addendum 6/14/2012. I can't believe I didn't say this before. I have no doubt, that if God were still writing and/or editing the Bible, that the message on procreation wouldn't be "Be fruitful and multiply." Instead, it would be "You've done enough multiplying. Now leave plenty of space for the other creatures of this earth."

Addendum 9/7/2014. I finally wrote a full post on why there are 1) too many workers, and 2) too many people in the world. I declare that I'm for a birthrate below replacement rate. If your religion has a hard time with this, too bad. My view is based on logic that is probably bullet-proof.

Contraception decision: War on religion?

Is the decision of the Obama administration on contraceptive insurance coverage a "war on religion?"

"The Catholic Church objects to being told to pay for something that it morally objects to. Why should the government make Catholic schools, hospitals and charities pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception? ... There is no reason it has to involve the Catholic Church other than pure spite." -- Washington Post commenter

I don't think it's "pure spite" or "war." Lots of people seem to want to ramp up the rhetoric, a problem not confined to one side of the dispute.

There are many non-spiteful reasons for wanting insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Here are a few: People like to control when they have children without foregoing their sex lives. To many, it doesn't make sense to carve out a special exception for birth control when many other medications/procedures are covered. Some women (a few) need hormones to control diseases like ovary cysts. None of these are spiteful or war-like reasons to cover contraceptives.

The decision about covering contraceptives pits two worthwhile goals against each other: 

• The usefulness of contraceptives is similar to the usefulness of hypertension medicines, and perhaps should be treated in the same manner by insurers. 
• Religious employers don't want to be forced to pay for medications that they have a long-standing doctrinal objections to. 

This is a difficult matter of deciding which of the conflicting interests is more important. It is not spite or war.

That the government and employers are involved is an artifact of our ridiculous health care insurance system where the employer pays. If we could transition to private/individual-funded choices, then we could pick our own insurance based on our own consciences. That would be much better. Amen.

 Praying . . . that the contraceptives keep working. 

Update 3/14/12. The Obama administration isn't trying to end religion or shut down the Catholic Church. But it sure feels like some alliances of conservatives are trying to completely shut down Planned Parenthood. If the Catholic Church was trying to do this directly, people would be up in arms.

Healthcare and the tentacles of government

One problem with Obamacare is that it greatly increases the role of the federal government in healthcare. But it's not that government's role is currently small. With Medicare, Medicaid, veteran's healthcare, and federal employees, the government's role hasn't been small since the early 1960's.

Private Sector Sprawl

This mirrors the growth of health insurance coverage in the private sector. If anything, the private sector has been in the forefront of increasing healthcare expenditures, and the federal programs only bring those spending patterns to the poorer parts of society. Private health insurance instituted coverage for prescription drugs long before Medicare Part D, so it's no wonder seniors wanted it too.

So the federal government is hardly the major instigator of insurance coverage for contraception. However, it is a significant step when government mandates that insurance companies have to provide them with no copay. I understand the reasoning: contraceptives are preventative care, and ACA mandates that insurance companies cover preventative care 100%. They are certainly cost-effective compared to maternity costs.

However, I question whether the country is going in the right direction to mandate that ALL insurance cover ALL care deemed preventative. We might make better decisions and save money if we had skin in the game. On the other hand, we might save some money in the short run by making bad decisions, like delaying treatment or skipping an uncomfortable screening test that also cost us money (insult on top of injury).

How Many Mandates?

So I'm uncertain. Should we go the libertarian route and leave the responsibility to the individual, or do we go statist and trust a government board to dictate what standard care and standard coverage should be? I actually think that the doctors in government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control have done a good job, so I don't object on principle to the statist route.

Maybe it is best for medical experts to evaluate practices, their costs, and their efficacy and report which are best. I don't particularly care if the medical experts work for the government or for large healthcare groups like Kaiser or Mayo Clinic, or for large insurers. If they use good methods and find good savings in money and lives, I want to know and benefit. However, when it comes to legally mandating certain coverage, maybe it's better to go slow--don't require too much all at once. Choose to mandate the most effective preventative care, not the kitchen sink of preventative care. And also allow other experiments, like Whole Foods health account/catastrophic care insurance combination.

I hope ACA doesn't become a monster, with too many mandates and therefore hideously expensive. It doesn't have to be that way. Still, ACA was an important step to partially solve a huge problem in the US for those without employer-provided healthcare insurance. Just like Romneycare was a big step for Massachusetts, and it's now benefiting many, including people in my own family.

More Choice

In a time when our healthcare insurance market seems like feast or famine (employer-provided insurance or nothing affordable), ACA mandated something else. It opened a door. Now let's open some doors for other sorts of healthcare coverage too.

Preventative care: Catching the #1 cancer in women

Extras:
Switzerland model, Singapore model with mandatory accounts.
CA mandates, CT mandates. Read them to see how much is mandated (a lot), and think about how you'd be glad it was mandated if you were in those shoes.
Read the sequel follow-up post.

Sanctions hurt the poor here

Not in Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Libya...

In Texas. The Texas legislature wanted to put sanctions on Planned Parenthood, so they eliminated funding and took the double hit from the loss of federal grants for family planning too. Clinical sites are closing and fees are being instituted or raised.

Some poor women may shift some of their small but existent disposable cash to pay for contraception. But for others, having to travel further and raise the extra $60  for the 3- or 6-month supply of pills will prove impossible, and nature will take its course. By this time next year, Texas may or may not see the results of this policy in birth rates, maternity hospital fees, child health program sign-ups, and adoptions.

We don't know the outcome yet. But it didn't have to come to this. In the fight over Planned Parenthood, someone could have blinked. Texas could have backed down, or Planned Parenthood could have separated into two organization: one that handles abortions and another that handles everything else.

If PP had done that, it would have been a capitulation to anti-choice forces and an abandonment of part of its mission. Still, I hope they considered it. If both types of services remain available through separate, that's not a huge sacrifice to make. Instead, both Texas and PP decided to sacrifice free or subsidized care for poor women.

Well, it's probably wrong to say Texas or PP sacrificed. The government of Texas (elected officials and public employees) and PP (the governing board and employees), and the strident pro-lifers behind the "kill PP" movement, are most likely still covered for the contraceptives they need and want. The real sacrifice is borne by those poor women who are pushed back into the bygone days of no contraceptives with all those stresses and uncertainties. We, the decision makers, are safe.

How far is the clinic?

Sources: NYT, Reuters, local Amarillo station

Update 3/16/12. Texas is suing the federal government over the loss of federal funding for its programs. Texas paper, Baltimore paper.

Update 4/15/12. More details on Planned Parenthood closings in Texas.

Contraception: Good works, bad people

Another rumination on pro-choice issues: Planned Parenthood has been besieged by conservatives all last year, but this might be a turn-around year for them. Susan J. Komen foundation announced that it was going to cut off grants to PP. Before Komen backtracked completely, it announced that it would still fund four locations because they were the only facilities in their areas for low-income women to receive breast cancer screenings.

This confirmed what I suspected: healthcare for the poor is spotty; PP is a major player for poor women; in some poor areas, PP is the only provider.

I wonder how many of the people who are working strenuously to defund (or preferably permanently close) PP have considered how poor women will get the healthcare that PP has provided. Are unsullied providers (with no connection to abortion) ready to step into breaches that would open if PP were closed or cut off from federal and state funding? The big question is: Can you actually separate contraceptive care from abortion?

I did a quick web search and found many independent women's health service providers. Roughly half stated that they provide abortion services, so scratch those. Many of the rest do referrals. Only one stated that it didn't provide abortion services. So it may be hard to find providers who are squeaky clean--no connection to abortion.

It's no surprise if it's hard to separate contraception services and abortion. Many people who use contraception want some sort of backup if the contraception fails. The failure rates aren't insignificant; they range from less than 1% to 20% depending on the contraceptive method. The backup is often abortion rather than continuing the unintended pregnancy. The provider who helped with the contraception will often want to help the woman with the unintended pregnancy, which means providing an abortion, referring her for an abortion, providing prenatal care, or making a referral for prenatal care. Few providers of contraception will want to throw up their hands and not help a woman whose contraception has failed.

So, the big answer: I don't think you can operationally separate contraception providers from abortion providers. People interested in providing contraceptive services don't usually stop there.

And what if they fail?

"I’m amazed, almost daily, at the fervor and zeal for which many conservatives, independents, and liberals espouse, nay advocate, for the murder of human beings to allow for the convenience of a mere vessel." --Wall Street Journal comment


More answers to the big question.
Indiana has trouble separating the services.
Washington Times article regurgitates pro-choice research.

The Political Lie Machine: Wanting Parallel Marriage Law

"Gay marriage advocates are not advocating equal access to civil marriage as it has been historically defined by statute, they are advocating the creation of a parallel institution of gay marriage." - Atlantic comment

My impression is that this comment is wrong, and that, in fact, few changes are needed to permit same sex marriage. But rather than assuming this was true, I wanted to check by looking at the Maryland law that passed on 2/23/12.

The total bill (House Bill 438) is 6 pages long. Reading every word was tedious but not time-consuming.

 Relatives You Cannot Marry

The first 1.5 pages are a summary and some boilerplate. The next 3 pages are double-spaced changes to the existing law. For example, the law no longer says:

A man may not marry his:

(i) grandfather’s wife;

(ii) wife’s grandmother; . . .

Now it says:

AN INDIVIDUAL may not marry THE INDIVIDUAL’S:

(I) GRANDPARENT’S SPOUSE;

(II) SPOUSE’S GRANDPARENT;  . . .

 Exemption Clauses

The next page contains the guarantees that religious organization do not have to perform or otherwise support such weddings and have a religious exemption from providing insurance benefits. The final half page postpones the effective date of the legislation to allow a referendum on the issue this year if enough signatures are collected.

*************************************************************
So changing the law takes about 6 pages. This hardly sounds like a "parallel institution" especially considering that the Maryland Family Law code consists of 15 chapters (titles). The marriage title consists of 18 sections. Allowing people of the same sex to marry hasn't required much change to the law.

So I'm calling bullshit on the claim of a parallel institution. It's the same institution.

 

Already gender-neutral

Extra: The Maryland code also says this:

(1) The Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shall provide to each clerk: 
(i) birth control information; and 
(ii) a list of the family planning clinics located in the county where the license is issued.

Luckily in Maryland, you don't need to take out a different license to have a procreating or a non-procreating or a not-yet-procreating marriage. Just pick up the pamphlets from the clerk and get thee to the family planning clinic if thou so desires.

Update 2/25/12. I should have done a better job of analyzing the claim that "gay marriage advocates" want a parallel institution. It's a pretty fake argument, since many gay men and lesbians have said that they don't want to settle for a second-class, separate-but-equal arrangement.

No, it's the traditionalists who might want that:

• The first preference (for at least some of them) would be a return to the closet. 
• The second choice is no legal validation for same-sex relationships. 
• The third choice is separate-and-different "civil unions." 

So it is people who are against same-sex marriage who want the parallel institution. Why would they want a separate institution? Because it is an abomination that people participating in those kinds of sex acts should want to be married or should be considered married. It's a vile misuse and destruction of the sacred rite of marriage.

This is my analysis of the anti-gay-marriage position. I hope I haven't misrepresented this position, which is easy to do since I disagree so strenuously. Here are some recent opinions gathered from the web:

"The practice of homosexuality is an abomination according to God's word. Gay marriage a matter of fairness? I don't think so! It is wrong because God's word says it is wrong. That includes the New Testament's Romans 1:23-32 which says that man on man sex and woman on woman sex is wrong. We can't vote in something that goes against God's word and expect His favor on this nation. . . Martin O'Malley and his wife are willing to overlook God's word in their support of this abomination which is an insult to a God who has given them much in this life. . . You know what happens to people who do that? Have you met any Amorites or Jebusites lately?" -- Letter to the Baltimore Sun, 2/3/12

"People that are gay, know in their heart of hearts, that what they are doing is not right, Just like a majority of people know that having sex with their parent or child is unacceptable. They are forcing the majority of us to accept their immoral behavior to assuage the [their] feelings of guilt and that what they are doing is okay because it is for “love” When I see those hypocrite “Priests or Rabbis” performing those so called “marriage ceremonies” , it is sickening as in those religions, it clearly says it is immoral and an abomination to g-d." -- Comment on CBS NewYork, 7/25/11

Of course, it's easy to find these kinds of statement when you use the terms 'sacred rite of marriage gay abomination' in a Google search. Maybe I've constructed a straw man, but I don't think so. I think this truly represents what a large number of gay marriage opponents think.