EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Sex Ed 101 Curriculum for Conservatives
Recent national kerfuffles over abortion and contraception access bring up many important questions: Should employers retain control over your wages and benefits after they sign them over to you? Is contraception, a service used by 99 percent of American women, really so controversial? How much state regulation should there be over women’s most private decisions? But amidst all those questions is one overarching one: Do conservatives need a crash course in sex ed?
Radio show host Rush Limbaugh speaks at a forum hosted by the Heritage Foundation on the similarities between the war on terrorism and the television show 24, in Washington, June 23, 2006. (REUTERS/Micah Walter)
Usually, when we think of the sex education debate, we think of junior high and high school kids putting condoms on bananas. But recent events indicate that this country needs remedial sex education for adults, specifically social conservatives who wish to hold forth on reproductive rights without seeming to know the basics regarding who has sex and how it works in 2012. With that in mind, I designed a quick curriculum for these surprisingly necessary courses.
Intercourse 101: It Takes Two to Tango. After voting for a mandatory ultrasound bill that serves no other purpose than to shame abortion patients for their sexuality, Virginia delegate David Albo complained in the legislature that he’s not getting the sex he feels entitled to from his wife. CNSNews columnist Craig Bannister shamed women on the pill for being “sex-crazed co-eds” who exhibit too much “sexual zeal” — before ending his piece by wistfully wishing he could have sex with all the sexually active women he just insulted. Rush Limbaugh, who is on his fourth marriage and is an admitted Viagra user, called Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who testified before Congress about her use of contraception, a “slut” and a “prostitute.”
In this first section of the remedial sex education course, we will discuss this sexual double standard: When having sex, men are behaving well and women behaving badly. The midterm will be an essay on the following prompt: “If women are supposed to say no to sex, whom do you propose straight men sleep with?”
Contraception 101: History as Prologue. Many conservatives appear to believe that prior to the Obama administration requiring employers to fully cover contraceptive care as part of their health plans, contraception wasn’t considered a medical service, but something more like a party item you pick up with your beer and cigarettes. Tina Korbe of Hot Air argued that supporters of the new regulation “labor under the illusion that contraception is a medical necessity.” Limbaugh argued that health insurance covering contraception means women are “paid to have sex.” The reaction on the right suggests that this is the first time in history someone has suggested that contraception care be included in general health benefits.
During this portion of the class, we will look at the history of medicalized birth control. Students will learn (in conjunction with another mandatory class, The Pill 101) that the birth control pill has always been controlled by doctors and pharmacies, and that insurance companies treat it as medical care by offering the drug with a co-pay. Special attention will be paid to the 28 states that already require contraception coverage, the existing Medicaid coverage of contraception, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decision that found that contraception coverage is a normal part of women’s healthcare that should be covered by healthcare plans.
Premarital Sex 101: A Quantitative Look. Underlying many of the arguments over women’s reproductive healthcare is a widespread fear of women using these rights to have sex outside of marriage. During the Arizona Republican primary debate, Rick Santorum blamed contraception for the problem of teen pregnancy, presuming that teenagers in a contraception-free world would instead abstain. Utah Republican state representative Bill Wright defended a bill banning discussion of contraception in schools by saying: “Why don’t we just be honest with them upfront that sex outside marriage is devastating?”
Contrary to students’ expectations, there is no high-level math prerequisite for this course. The statistics involved are relatively straightforward. Students will learn that 95 percent of Americans have premarital sex and have done so for decades without bringing ruin to the nation. In addition, students will read literature showing that the teen pregnancy rate actually declined after the sexual revolution, leaving it at half the rate it was in the 1950s. Students will be asked to research why it is that blue states, where residents are more likely to use contraception and delay marriage, have lower rates of divorce and teen pregnancy.
The Pill 101: A Scientific Look. The ignorance on display on the right regarding the birth control pill, which has been around as a contraceptive for over 50 years, has been astounding. Limbaugh’s comment — “she’s having so much sex she can’t afford her own birth control pills” — indicates that he believes there’s a correlation between the number of sexual encounters and the number of pills necessary. Limbaugh also seems to think mothers and women who use birth control are mutually exclusive categories, saying: “How do you become a mom if you’re into birth control?” Additionally, with words such as “slut,” “prostitute” and “sex-crazed” flying around to describe women on hormonal contraception, it appears many conservatives believe that the drugs exist primarily for use by single women with multiple partners.
Students in our remedial sex ed course will take their time learning about hormonal contraception. They will learn that women on the pill must take one every day for it to work, no matter how much sex they’re having. Students will discover that monogamy isn’t enough to prevent unintended pregnancy, and thus married and monogamous women use the pill just as single women do. To drive home what not using contraception would mean for women, married and otherwise, students will be asked to watch the TLC show about the Duggar family, with its 19 children, and then offer a five-minute presentation in class.
As evidenced by the ignorant rot tumbling out of various right-wing mouths in response to these controversies, a curriculum of this kind is sorely needed. Perhaps female Democrats in Congress can write a bill funding Sex Education for Grown-Up Pundits and help elevate the conversation with a little basic understanding.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
75 Comments so far
Show AllAMANDA: I think you're smart as a whip and appreciate your commentary on this subject, but another course adjunct ought to be included on basic sensitivity training. I might also include counseling to any woman who could sleep with the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich, to name but 2 Pillsbury Dough-boy misogynists on the extended Right Wing list. Just one of them on Viagra ought to suit the definition of torture for anyone standing within 3 feet of them! YUCK! on steroids... and don't forget, these nasty boys would make LOTS of noise if the same insurance companies thwarting women's access to birth control decided not to fund their reverse-impotence drugs.
Hear! Hear! I propose if Insurance companies place limits on birth control because of religious or "moral" reasons, the same treatment of Viagra, Cialis, etc. be used. It has always been my contention that if men could get pregnant, there'd be an abortion clinic on every other block....sort of the Starbucks of contraception, if you will.
Is Rush's still strung out on oxycontin ?
I would suggest one more class in this curriculum--A Historical Look at Prostitution, 101: How long it's been around, what services do they render, who uses their services, why their services are even needed, etc. Oral presentations will be required on research starting from B.C. to present day.
I think prostitution is degrading. It developed largely because women were prevented from holding equal status in society. In today's war-torn zones, how many women are forced into the alleged "oldest profession" lest they, and their children, starve? Rather than see prostitution normalized (as yet another way to cheapen the female body and Essence), I'd like to see systems of justice in place that make war impossible, and jobs of worth inevitable.
Years ago when I first moved to Puerto Rico *(the late l970's) I met a handsome enough young bisexual Latin male who confided in me that he HAD to turn to prostitution for a time. I think it's just as degrading for a male! And I told him there are ALWAYS other jobs, presuming you're not in a post-war savagely ravaged land. I'd rather make minimum wage and have my dignity, then be treated like someone else's open sewer. For those rare few women who get paid over $500 an hour, and are protected by a network of empowered interests, I might argue the point differently. However, with thousands of pre-pubescent children annually sold into sexual slavery... tolerance for selling flesh should NOT be high on any Progressive's list.
Ours is not a society that values healthy sexuality. Had the church not been so successful in forging the ultimate chasm between men and women by framing natural sexual attraction as a "mortal sin," far more congenial relations (and the fruits of balanced PARTNERSHIP) would have been this wounded world's legacy.
There has been no healing in this regard. Thus most modern actions are just old dysfunctions endlessly springing from the same mortal wound.
I can make the point, but it would be foolish to suggest an equivalency between the numbers of women with breast cancer, and the far lower numbers of men. Sure, they get plenty of Prostate Cancer, while women get ovarian Cancer, etc. And as to prostitution, I would say it's probably more a lifestyle adaptation of gay males than straight males. Then again, what guy would not want to be Richard Gere's character in "American Gigolo?" The sexual stigma is much harder on women than men. If a guy screws three women, his friends and bar-room pals cheer him on. But if a woman should have 3 sexual escapades in the same week (or month, for that matter), few would not call her a slut or worse.
Let us not forget, in Arab nations a woman can be KILLED for any sensual indiscretion. Even innocent acts tied to the ultimate outcome of sexual intimacy are defined as "Honor Crimes." Honor to whom? The family, as the female is seen as a possession with her virginity being THE item that must be kept intact for the best "retail" odds in the mating marketplace. In India, the bride's family is expected to provide a dowry, and this is no easy matter to people impoverished to begin with.
Until there is FULL equality and religious doctrine reinforces that FACT of being... the degradation will continue. So yes, some men suffer, but it's generally those identified with feminine values, behaviors, or role-playing. In other words, it's still largely an attack on the FEMININE side of the life force. All that's done to Mother Earth reinforces this observation.
It is not only in arab nations that women are tortured and killed for their sexuality. It happens in fundamentalist groups of various religions here. Thankfully here it is not state condoned but the Dominionists are working hard on that. All fundamentalist religions oppress women and are violence producing ideologies. We need to be making this clear before these religious zealots bring on more crazy than we're already seeing in the political circus maximus on msm screens.
"I'd like to see systems of justice in place that make war impossible, and jobs of worth inevitable"
Wow. If you can figure out how to make that happen, you will be remembered by all humanity forever. The only way to get rid of *most* prostitution in any society is to improve the economy to the point where prostitution doesn't pay better than other jobs for the people who become prostitutes.
Oral presentations on prostitution. ROFL
It interesting that Insurance companies will pay for the following for men.
1. Erectile dysfunction drugs
2. Vacuum erection devices
3. Penile implants
4. Vasectomies
5. Circumcision
Note that Rush had bottles of Vaigra in his luggage after whlst en-route to the Dominican republic. Now he was flying down there with 4 other men so one of two conclusions can be made. He was going to the Dominican republic to have sex with those other men or he was going to the Dominican republic to have sex with the "sluts" down there. Unfortunately the women in the Dominican republic do not have a lot of choice with whom they will have sex with as it often the only way they can earn any money to get enough to eat.
But Mr Morals really does not care about that does he. I wonder if his insurance company paid for that Viagra? This guy is a pustule .
The laws are loose in the 3rd world. I knew a 35-year old man in Puerto Rico, an American of German descent, who literally went out hunting for boys under 13 for sexual trysts. In his mind, the boys wanted it. In the U.S. he'd be in jail for pedophilia, but not there. It's worse in the Dominican Republic. I heard wealthy gay males laugh about going there for sex junkets with men... presumably because they were "well endowed."
As to bringing up the issue that insurance routinely covers all the sex stuff men prefer... could the sexist and misogynistic priorities be any clearer? And then to suffer these religious imbeciles thinking they get to decide for adult women, what their sex lives will consist of? Joe Hope once became incensed with me for stating off-handedly that a night with Loreena Bobitt would provide "the necessary education," and while the comment is of course insensitive, one can almost appreciate its necessity given the way these authoritarian creeps take symbolic possession of others' genitals... as well as their freedom of expression.
Thaliand became a popular destination for pedophiles in Canada as well due to few laws protecting the Children there and its government looking the "Other way" as they more interested in those Tourism dollars (There is nothing the dollar does not corrupt).
There are now laws in Canada that allow our Government to prosecute Citizens who go to other nations to have sex with Children but as you can imagine these are rather hard to enforce without the cooperation of those countries own Police forces and Governments.
This one reason I all but puke when I hear of Clintons plans to turn Haiti into a "Tourist Destination". Rich White guys going down there to relive the "Plantation Lifestyle" of the 1600's is what it amounts to.
When the Philippines kicked out the US Military that first time around its Government stated in part that the US troops were turning the people into a nation of Prostitutes. Now with a new Government the US Military is being invited back in. Has Rush Limbaugh ever railed on about those MEN in the Military as "sluts" ?
Furthermore, why does he not rail about taxpayer dollars going to members of the Military to have sex?
Thanks, GW North. If I lived in Canada, I'd love to have dinner with you and discuss these issues. You see so much and your sense of empathy is intact.
I suppose if the U.S. martial machine's unstated ethos is to go forth in a barrage of raping, pillaging and plundering, then actual rape is par for the course. As you so wisely (and repeatedly) relate, there is no force that more endangers the earth's ecosystems leaving its fossil fuel imprint behind, than the U.S. MIC. Meat eaters and drivers of huge behemoths come in 2nd and 3rd in the contest to destroy the Earth Mother.
I make it my business to constantly bring into discussions, this idea of the LAW of karma. To the fat slob 44-year old pediophile who rapes a child and hands some "sponsor" a couple of dollars, that transaction may appear to pass below the radar, but just as our computer chips hold data, the entire universe is a sentient data-holding field. This etheric web is endowed with memory!!!! and that's why we each meet the karmic trajectory that they've put into motion. I am keen to this fact as it's supported by MANY mystics and spiritual teachers, and I find evidence in the hundreds of astrological charts I've read for an equal number of clients over the past 30 years.
Whatever is done unto the least of these is done unto me, the Spirit of Life/Creation.
If more people understood that they could not degrade another human being without casting THAT LOT onto themselves (even if payment is extracted at some later date), I think more would behave with decency towards others. The forum's enemies to spiritual understanding who sometimes attack these ideas suggest they represent mere excuses for an afterlife. To the contrary, they bring the greater, more just awareness to THIS one. After all, too many suffer, and the suffering operates like an invisible resource pool that keeps on producing like effects. Fortunately, there are times when the law of mercy, or the power of forgiveness pays down the debt pile.
Carlos Casteneda's teacher Don Juan once observed an unusual act of kindness and defined it as a "Payment to the Spirit of Mankind," a fund, he later acknowledged, was abysmally low. That's why the bumper sticker about practicing random acts of kindness, or the film concept--Pay It Forward--are so vital to lowering the karmic debt that so much of humanity will be held to.
Excellent comment, GwNorth. People decry profiling, but I have said for a long time that Rush fits the profile of a pedophile. He came back from the Dominican Republic with Viagra in a prescription bottle under someone else's name, but no one charged him with a crime. Why would a rich white man like Rush have to travel abroad for sex? He could get it in any city in America with his wealth. Why has he had 4 marriages? Did he not have sex with his wives? Inquiring minds would like to know, but I would bet he paid each former wife a pretty penny not to talk.
Rush and his third wife, Marta Maranda Fitzgerald, reportedly lived in separate houses on adjoining lots while married to one another and were rarely seen together in public.
During Christmas weekend of 1988, second wife Michelle Sixta left Rush. Rush and Michelle divorced in 1990.
First wife Roxy Maxine McNeely filed for divorce in March 1980 on grounds of incompatibility. Rush and Roxy divorced on July 10, 1980.
Love the google.
Another question not asked of Rush. Why doesn't he have any children?
And I can not understand the women who would sleep with that gas bag. Unless they are just his beard covering the fact he might be a pedophile or a guy who likes under aged girls.
Doughboy is the correct term. Love the vid of him jiggling on stage.
Hey, for a while I religiously put condoms on my bananas in the interests of safe sex.
Sure, I never got any Sexually Transmitted Diseases-- but I stopped doing it after I almost choked on that damn condom at breakfast one morning.
[rim shot]
Is this an audience or an oil painting?
Ya made me LOL!
Very funny, indeed!
"Limbaugh argued that health insurance covering contraception means women are “paid to have sex."
But Limpballs never said anything about Viagra being covered. Aren't men being paid to have sex?
And health insurance covering heart disease means Limbaugh was paid to have a heart attack? And health insurance covering addiction means Limbaugh was paid to be a drug addict? And...
O.S.
Appreciate your posts.............. you trivialize a sad topic here.
Government funding of contraception becomes a major issue in American political discourse but government funding of the murder and maiming of thousands is........boring. It's been going on for so long it's just part of who we are.
This article is full of win!
Unfortunately the paychecks of the kookiest reichwind talking heads depends on them not knowing much about life, the universe or anything else. So getting them to take a course that focused on what is, rather than what should be, will be rather difficult.
Sex 101: The Politics of Sex
Females as a class of humans can get pregnant and have a constitutional right to their rights of privacy regards to their reproductive choices.
Males as a class of humans cannot get pregnant.
Females are treated as second class citizens by patriarchy.
Birth rates are plummeting in Japan, Italy and elsewhere. I think that means a lot of evidence to believe women worldwide are also deciding that not to have sex with males is their right to choose as well.
Very poor attempt at obfuscating the issues at play. If someone's paying you, you'd better attend more dis-information classes. This really doesn't pass snuff.
So, lanista, do you get your boss to approve every expenditure in the family budget? After all,it's his money and he gave it to you..., right?
An utterly stupid argument, as usual, from Thomas More / Herny 8 / mightymite etc.
"What it is about is forcing people to violate their conscience and their religious beliefs to pay for a service that they hold as anathema. And it is not just about Catholics."
Right. And paying for the military (trough of which military pigs such as you feed off) violates my conscience and religious beliefs, Paying to protect capitalism violates my conscience and religious beliefts.
"For people who constantly harp about the separation of church and state to take the position they are doing now is the height of hypocrisy. And to claim it is about health care is to plumb the depths of mendacity."
You appear to not understand what separation of church and state means. It certainly does not mean that any particular religious belief gets special exemptions from the state. The one who is demonstrating the height of hypocrisy and the depht of mendacity is you. As usual.
i'm slow i guess, only in the past couple days did i notice the eerie familiarity of Ianista's comments...
Could you please explain to me how having an OPTION for contraception in your health insurance suddenly makes you stop being Catholic, or Jewish, or Buhddist, or anything else? You may, or may not get cancer, or break a bone, or have a limb amputated, but you still pay to have these coverages for yourself and others as well. The fact that contraceptive coverage ( as preventive healthcare- and no not just for preventing pregnancy) helps keep healthcare coverage down, and thus premiums, means that everybody pays into the same pool to get the same coverages if needed, or wanted. In short: As many types of coverage and options for coverage are lumped into as large a package as possible to keep the overall price lower, whether you actually use the coverages or not. So, WHAT, exactly is your problem?
The birth control brouhaha is just groundwork for creating a way for pious insurance companies bowing to the sensitivities of the religious to avoid paying for:
pregnancy care/prenatal care of the un-wed
care for addictions
care for alcohol related disease
HIV prevention and treatment and early case finding
Now you play--how many more can you add?
We need more writers like Amanda Marcotte who can use incisive wit to illuminate her points lucidly.
I'm rather surprised that Reuters is the publisher. But it was just on a Reuters blog, not sent worldwide via its newswire service.
I posit that food and exercise are health concerns. Every time I choose to eat...anything and anywhere...because it's my personal choice what and where I eat...the goverment should pay for it because without food, I'll die.
Also, the goverment must pay for my sneakers, deodorant, workout clothes, and gym membership because thats what I require to prevent cardiovascular disease.
Actually gym membership is covered in the affordable health care act. That doesn't mean the government is paying for it except for those that can't afford to purchase health care insurance, you will pay for it yourself under the mandate.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. The issue is whether people who pay for health insurance should be able to get the pill covered by that insurance. Since you pay a premium for that insurance or it is paid as part of an employment package, you are not getting anything free.
So why do you lie about what this is about?
What is it costing us as a nation to tolerate and subsidize religious fantasies? Churches are tax-exempt. The idea is that they are nonpolitical entities, unable to support themselves and their grandiose church buildings on just the passed plate, tithing and 'membership' dues, and thus needed some help not to pay into the general tax fund that makes sure the roads are paved, the police are paid, and the water keeps flowing.
This means religious organizations have a special dispensation from the surrounding community. Meanwhile, it costs us a lot of extra money in the public schools to retrain the church's adherent's children in rational thought, something their parents are woefully lacking.
"Jesus died for your sins": Well, maybe, for three days. Then he came back and since he knew the drill beforehand, it really wasn't that much of a sacrifice.
"Jesus was born of a virgin": The 'virgin' was a married woman and the 'virgin' meme is a mistranslation of the original word which simply meant, young maiden...
"Jesus actually existed and performed miracles": Well, we're really not that sure about either of those ideas. It's been 2000 years and people have lied to keep themselves in power.
"The Bible is the absolute word of God and infallible": Have you read it? It's horrific and contradictory in the extreme.
Now we've got religious people, who by definition cannot think rationally, poking their noses into political debates and discussions of public import.
We really need an IQ test for these people before they can speak publicly or voice their opinions, and it might be nice to reinstitute the taxes on them. When are they going to start paying their fair share? We could call it 'the ignorance tax'.
I got an even better one:
"Buy a house. It always goes up in value."
Rush isn't really a conservative. He's just a mouth without a brain.
No, Rush has a brain. A big smart EVIL one. You don't get where he got without smarts. His dad served as ambassador to India under Eisenhower, Reagan appointed his uncle to the federal bench, and W appointed his cousin to the federal bench. So Rush and his family have connections that go a long way back and I bet he got a good education.
Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, Rush wants to take the spoons out of the mouths of the children of the poor.
Doesn't anyone remember Griswald? 1964 ruling by the Warren Court? You cannot outlaw birth control. Violates right of privacy, due process and equal protection clause. Not to mention TITLE 7. The Blunt amendment was illegal. Secondly the comments by the fine young law student was about hormone therapy for woman. Not sex. Some one tell the ditto head in chief this inconvenient fact--please!
Repugs are such idiots! And Rush is the biggest fat fucking MORON on earth! As for the ditto heads that follow him: they are pathetic tea bagging zombies.
Oh, and since Rush probably uses Viagra; I guess we pay him to have sex. So that makes him a prostitute and male slut. Seems reasonable by Rush's logic. And all 4 of his wives have no kids? Well? Where does that lead.
This is all absurd! True dementia by the right. All pointless also, as it is all unconstitutional to boot!
The sad part here is that with fewer and fewer employers of young adults and the working class even offering health care benefits, instead opting to hire 2 or more part-timers to fill full timer's positions....two things have increasingly come to pass:
1) many of those who could use the assistance of employer sponsored health care can no longer even get it and
2) many out there who now work 2, 3 or 4 part time jobs to try and keep up with their ever escalating bills, probably don't have energy by the end of their work shifts to even be intimate with another.
I suppose single payer care system where every American received the benefits and dignity they deserve would've resulted, in these Conservatives' minds, in one big national orgy...no wonder it was kept "off the table".
If it's a prescribed medication and she's covered by medical insurance why should she pay out of pocket? The insurance premium has been paid.
She's not asking for free stuff. She is paying for it. The insurance co is supposed to cover medical illnesses. Illnesses that the pill can cure or help with. This was mandated as part of a sexual discrimination case in 2001. The court ruled that if insurance cos covered male enhancements, then they had to cover birth control too.
But why do you lie that it's about free stuff, when it is about whether the insurance co that you pay covers medicine you need?
This article shows the over-sexuallization of our culture. A week ago I spoke to a few classes of college students. All were high school graduates. NONE had ever heard of Howard Zinn. Yesterday I met with a group of adult voters. They wanted to prepare for voting on Tuesday. None knew the different between a Primary and a General Election. None could name the 3 branches of government. Only one could name the Vice President.
Rush Limbagh is the winner in this controversy. He has gotten a billion dollars worth of free publicity compliments of the Dems. If people would ignore him, he would go away.
Your post shows your poor reasoning ability. That people have not heard of Howard Zinn does not prove that our culture is "over" sexualised, whatever that means.
Nor does any of your other examples prove your clailm about oversexualisation.
Great article and a lot of good comments. But, really, this whole trend/tack being taken by the Repukes and the so-called 'Religious' Right has nothing to do with sex or health insurance, per se.
It has mostly to do with power and control.....power by wealthy, mostly white males over All women and everyone else who exists.
They'd like nothing better than to take the global civilization back several centuries in which the Alpha males were in charge of everything, and discarded that which displeased them - women, slaves, persons of other races, the poor and ugly, etc. After all, only Man was created first and in the image of Gawd.....the rest of us are just ribs and dust.
Depeche Mode's "People are People" theme has always resonated with me. I would think that political parties that require votes from all sorts of people, would staunchly opt for inclusiveness, not the most petty, paranoid exclusiveness. Strength, wisdom and a better world lie in the direction of accepting the diversity (not a bad word, really) inherent in people with different ideas, world views, backgrounds and perspectives. This is Common Sense 101 which really supersedes all of the other fundamental entry level courses. It's the extrapolation of "two heads are better than one." Since we are The United States, then purely-emotional, often intolerant, frequently hateful persuasive tactics devolve into divide-and-conquer results - clearly in no one's long range best interests.
It takes two to tango...but the roles are hardly equal. A man bears responsibility in pregnancy but has no right, which is unfair in the extreme.
if she wants to keep the pregnancy and he doesn't, he still has to pay for it, and when he wants to keep it and she doesn't, he doesn't get a say.
Given the historical precedent that Roe was predicated on her right to privacy, the financial aspects of the pregnancy should be her private business as well.
No, they're not equal at all. The man has no risk of dying when giving birth or during the pregnancy. (unless the woman finds out the man has also knocked up her sister...)
There's here's an idea...so crazy it just might work. If you don't want to run the risk of dying (never mind the fact that you run the risk of dying just by living) from a pregnancy, either don't get pregnant (with so many options from hormones, barrier devices and sterilization women have far and away more options than men) or terminate the pregnancy if you do get pregnant. Either way, this is all under the control of women and rightfully so. He wasn't speaking about the physical act of impregnation and carrying of a fetus to term, he was referring to parenthood being a choice (although you attempted to conflate the two).
I reject the idea that, simply because I chose to have sex, I automatically accepted the responsibility of being a parent. Call me misogynistic if you want but, she chose to have sex too and also chose to carry the fetus to term and give birth. If she has all the choice, then she should have the corresponding responsibility for those choices. This is equality. She doesn't give up any of her rights to choose at any moment either before, during or after a pregnancy. Why are we men assumed to have done so, simply by inserting our penis into a woman's vagina? This is totally unequal and unjust.
If, for the sake of argument, a woman assumes greater risk by becoming a mother then, giving a man choice in becoming a father becomes all the more important. If everything was equal, a man choosing not to be a father could request that the pregnancy be terminated or that the mother assumes total responsibility for the birth, care and maintenance of the child that she CHOSE to carry, in spite of his choice. This is justice and equality. Otherwise, if I am required to assume responsibility, even if I don't desire to, there should be some corresponding compensation made to me for doing so. Don't like this? Then don't crow about equality because this is as equal as it gets.
So what are women going to do when the republicans (quite a few of them) have stated that they will make birth control illegal? How will they be able to behave responsibly and safely then? Esp with all those males getting their prescriptions of viagra filled and needing to use it.
The whole issue was about birth control being available thru insurance coverage, just like all those male enhancements drugs are. Insurance cos that people pay premiums for. So we are not talking about free here. We are talking about something someone pays for.
This issue came about because a court ordered that if insurance cos pay for male enhancements. The court ordered that women's birth control must be made available thru insurance too. This was in 2001. But our former president ignored the ruling. Now it's being implemented.