and so here ya go! Days where really good news is abundant is rare, and I believe it shouldn’t be taken for granted. I had read these articles separately throughout the day, and yet the happiness i felt didn’t surface until i read them all together. In a row. It’s awesome! i truly believe in actively practicing gratitude. I’ll take any good news you got. — Feministe.
1) Judge blocks Kan. law stripping Planned Parenthood of fed. funding, says law unlikely to last
The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.
3) New Law [in State of New York] Ensures Domestic Batterers Can’t Legally Buy Guns
4) Married lesbian couple rescues 40 kids during Norway shooting rampage
The first three are immeasurably significant, and I very literally get butterflies in my stomach when I think about them. In one state the importance of PP and the unconstitutionality of what anti’s were trying to do is being clearly established; federally the importance of comprehensive healthcare for women was also reaffirmed. Now, think about it.. most young women go to Planned Parenthood for contraception and screenings because we can get it for free or low cost – because home isn’t a safe place to discuss realities or because we couldn’t afford it through our doctors. Now every woman will have the right to preventative care (hopefully it plays out as nicely as it sounds), we are one step closer to choice being a true choice (because choice starts before pregnancy). I’m not saying now Planned Parenthood is irrelevant, by any means. Many women still can’t even get basic healthcare. My mom doesn’t even have health insurance. And across the country we saw women’s right to choose being chipped away. Obviously there’s still a really long way to go, but that doesn’t mean we should be calloused and not appreciate and be grateful for what is being accomplished.
The fourth one makes me feel all mushy and really sparks the urge to run to the nearest “focus on the family” esque agency and say “what, sucka!” but i’m just feeling silly 
anon
August 4, 2011
The insurance rule is completely silly and very anti-choice, when the term is used in a larger context, for a number of reasons.
1: There is a health care coverage crisis in the country. Part of the reason for this crisis is the fact that health insurers have so many coverage mandates (depending on the state). This will drive premiums up, further pricing people out of the insurance market. Now that a small booklet of care is mandated, it makes it harder for a young person to get basic health insurance (ie, get into a motorcycle accident and need to pay for a serious hospital bill type insurance).
2: Who does this help? It doesn’t help the uninsured, because they can’t afford insurance. It doesn’t help a lot of people with insurance because a lot of these services were already covered. How many people had insurance, but couldn’t afford the $15 copay for monthly OCPs? I’d guess fairly few.
3: At the very least, this makes birth control options less efficient. What we will have is someone (in this case, a patient) spending someone else’s money (in this case, the insurer). On the Friedman “table,” this is the second most inefficient way to obtain goods and services.* So previously, while a woman may have opted for less expensive forms of birth control that still met their needs, they may opt for more expensive methods, such as IUDs or Implanon. Health care costs in this country are out of control, largely (IMHO, of course) because of this problem.
4: There’s no exemption, from what I understand, for religious organizations. Let’s face it, if I work for a Catholic organization, I shouldn’t be expecting birth control coverage. That would like me expecting the right to wear anti-abortion shirts while working at Planned Parenthood.
5: Why aren’t vasectomies covered?
All in all, health care consumers need MORE choices, not fewer. This really exemplifies the problems with our health care system. Even expensive birth control methods are fairly inexpensive. Implanon costs about $600 and lasts three years. That’s $17 a month. It would be like expecting your home insurer to pay for your DVR bill.
* Explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=iv&v=5RDMdc5r5z8&annotation_id=annotation_479468
On a related note, kind of scary that convicted batters could legally buy firearms. (Although we should save a debate on gun control for another blog post
.
Jamie.Marie
August 4, 2011
while, i don’t think i’d go as far to say the hhs ruling is “anti choice” i do agree with a lot of your post and the entire thing was INCREDIBLY thought provoking, and *much* appreciated!
Though I don’t think the reason rates are so high is because of mandates… i think it has a lot more to do with capitalism. I do think more options should be covered. I have many of my own issues with hormonal birth control (which, to my knowledge is the form most used). Why aren’t vasectomies covered? Are condoms covered, if not, why not? I definitely have issues with it. Which kinds of BC will be carried? of course the ones whose large pharmaceutical companies can woo the doctors.. the whole thing is a clusterfuck. obviously.
I find of it more of a… philosophical… battle won, to be honest. Birth control has never, ever been viewed as something women have a “right” to, and has not to my knowledge been discussed as “preventative healthcare” in any context. It’s only viewed in the context of something “women better take care of it or else they get pregoo an obviously an incompetent, irresponsible slut” (obviously over-exaggerated but i hope the point isn’t lost) I think it’s a major step for how we as a culture view the importance of birth control and things like, you know, actually making an informed choice about pregnancy. How it will affect options, I cannot pretend to know. But maybe if birth control can become more mainstreamed, more money will be put into developing new options. Who knows.
Like I said in my original post, I understand this only will produce physical results with those lucky enough to have healthcare coverage.. my own mother doesn’t have health insurance. And while I don’t think it helps enough people, it does help some. yes, I do think there are people who couldn’t afford a fifteen dollar co pay for birth control.. i used to be one of them. That is one reason so many young people go to planned parenthood.
I find the implanon example a little… sketchy. First of all, long term methods (like the depo shot) of hormonal bc have a lot of side affects, like depression, which means for women who have been diagnosed with depression aren’t advised to take it (this happens to be a majority of our female population). also, $600 up front doesn’t simply equal 17 a month unless you have a payment system that doesn’t accrue interest..
Also, birth control isn’t the only thing in this package. Other really important preventative measures are covered.. like screening for domestic violence, which absolutely is not already happening (unless you’re a member of kaiser northern california.. probably a couple others). Yes, it’s still only helping those ppl who have coverage, but that’s more people than are being screened now. Let me tell you as a DV advocate, getting medical professionals on board can be like pulling teeth. and is, in most cases.
I definitely understand the larger issues at play. Also, to my knowledge there is an exemption for religious institutions, though individuals on the catholic/christian side say the exemption is too narrow. Google it. but, while still understanding it’s flawed, and with larger battles to be fought for the betterment of society at large – especially in the healthcare arena – i personally choose to take a moment to be happy that this happened.