# LAws ro restrict male rights



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

I am surprised billi hasn't found that one yet:

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&#8217;re experiencing problems with  erectile dysfunction, as well as be required to see a sex therapist  before they can get a prescription.
> Read more: Laws That Target Male Reproductive Rights - Free Birth Control Debate - Cosmopolitan
> ​




(The other ones are bogus...whoever thought them up must have been on crack)


This is actually the response from the politician introducing a bill similar to the above quoted:


> Dear Concerned Citizen,
> 
> Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with me and for  expressing your concern for these important women&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s womb.
> 
> ...



If desired I can also link a discussion of a bunch of women about the joys of having a problematic cycle....


----------



## ETinCYQX (Mar 19, 2012)

...

What?

I didn't think feminazi's existed anymore.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 19, 2012)

There's one here that has been introduced in Missouri that requires some stuff before the state will approve a vascectomy.  These types of bills are not seriously expected to be approved. The women introducing them are trying to point out the sillyness in the current arguements over women's birth control and health rghts.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2012)

Well, I don't know what a rectal exam has to do with viagra. If you can explain that to my satisfaction, I might agree. As to cardiac stress tests - I guess if you want to ensure all medical insurance plans, private or government, make this a required and covered standard, it is OK. Your (soon to be increased) tax dollars at work.

As to the Oklahoma law, sounds very Judeo/Christian to me.

State Senator Ms Turner just sounds like a politician. Say enough different things in long paragraphs, and somebody will like a part, and just gloss over the rest. "... Thank you for taking time to share your thoughts with me and for expressing your concern for these *important womens health issues*.
...

This war on *reproductive rights* is an insult to women everywhere.
... (bolding mine to separate out what I consider important)
"
Which is it really? A health issue or a reproductive rights issue? They are NOT the same as normally debated in the USA. And do either trump the health or reporductive rights of the unborn? Not easy to answer and certainly not scientifically proven by either side.


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Well, I don't know what a rectal exam has to do with viagra. If you can explain that to my satisfaction, I might agree. As to cardiac stress tests - I guess if you want to ensure all medical insurance plans, private or government, make this a required and covered standard, it is OK. Your (soon to be increased) tax dollars at work.
> 
> As to the Oklahoma law, sounds very Judeo/Christian to me.
> 
> ...



Well, how else are they going to check your prostate....yep, part of an all inclusive health check. 

The vasectomy and location of deposit, now those are stupid.

However, put the shoe on the other foot: As a woman you can't just get your tubes tied or a hysterectomy willi-nilli...see the problem?

Now, while the above laws were brought up, a bunch of women were discussing - as I mentioned - the joys of the monthly visit from Aunt Flo...you know, the cramping, the heavy....well, lets no go there...but being generally MISERABLE for a good week of the month, some can be downright incapacitated. What would/could bring them relieve is many (most often actually) not covered by their health plan. You guest it, the dreaded Birth Control....

Equality, baby...

For starters I was amazed that billi has not been up and about screaming castration at the mere sight of such laws...as we all know how socialist an attempt of equality is...

But of course it does not come as any surprise that those laws - even the Viagra law - is struck down by a body of mostly past middle aged guys...I am sure a great many have the little blue pill in their carry-on...

I don't expect to see anybody who has not had to deal with the cost of female reproductive health - or the intrusiveness of it - to see the ridiculous discrepancy within the law about that.


----------



## Senjojutsu (Mar 19, 2012)

Dammit Granfire, 

When I read this thread's title I thought it was going to be a discussion about Divorce Court rulings across America.
:uhyeah:

Not that I am still bitter mind you...

So several legislative feminazi's want some payback with laws restricting getting Viagra, eh?

Hhmmnnn, why do I have visions in my head of a certain, publicity-seeking, love-child producing "preacher" leading the protest marches to the various State Capital Buildings with the chant:

NO ERECTIONS! NO PEACE!!


----------



## Carol (Mar 19, 2012)

:lfao:

John you owe me a new keyboard my friend...I just spit coffee all over mine with the image of a couple local yokels doing exactly that...


----------



## crushing (Mar 19, 2012)

WC_lun said:


> There's one here that has been introduced in Missouri that requires some stuff before the state will approve a vascectomy. These types of bills are not seriously expected to be approved. The women introducing them are trying to point out the sillyness in the current arguements over women's birth control and health rghts. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?




Well, I guess it's kind of funny and nearly makes a point as long as not much thought is put in to it.  This false equivalency fails quickly because there isn't a male counterpart to abortion.  Male rights in regards to having a say in the future of a developing pre-natal human (unborn child is considered a loaded term) to which the male contributed in creating really can't get much more restrictive than they already are.  That's why these "counter" bills had to go for headline grabbing ridiculousness.

The male has no legal say in regards to the destruction of the fetus, yet can be forced to provide child support if the fetus is not destroyed and the woman chooses to carry to term.  There is an imbalance between rights and responsibilities in this regard and the rights people have certainly don't favor men, but maybe this is the best we can do for now?


----------



## oaktree (Mar 19, 2012)

Man gives up his rights as soon as he is married. I have given up the right to be right and me being wrong is better than me being right..I think that is how the logic is.


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

crushing said:


> Well, I guess it's kind of funny and nearly makes a point as long as not much thought is put in to it.  This false equivalency fails quickly because there isn't a male counterpart to abortion.  Male rights in regards to having a say in the future of a developing pre-natal human (unborn child is considered a loaded term) to which the male contributed in creating really can't get much more restrictive than they already are.  That's why these "counter" bills had to go for headline grabbing ridiculousness.
> 
> The male has no legal say in regards to the destruction of the fetus, yet can be forced to provide child support if the fetus is not destroyed and the woman chooses to carry to term.  There is an imbalance between rights and responsibilities in this regard and the rights people have certainly don't favor men, but maybe this is the best we can do for now?



Well, abortion and vasectomy is a stretch, no doubt.
But  Tubal ligation is not. And one is generally not given to a woman of child bearing age without major hoop jumping. 
Oh... and the problem of paying for it. More acrobatics right there.

So while much of this 'lawmaking' is outright silly, a select few ought to be taken more serious.
You know, either or.

And please, while a man has rightfully no recourse on the pregnancy (well, as they tell a woman, should have not had sex, you know...they make stuff against unplanned procreation) they are not completely without rights once the bundle of joy - or at least the result of joy has made it's appearance. Equality is shifting here, too. A bit unsteady but it's moving. (besides, why should then kid suffer, because dad could not keep it in the pants)


Now. lets recap:
Women don't get the pill paid for, even after enough prodding and poking of the unpleasant kind

Guys get their stuff by just mentioning 'problems' real or imagined. Paid for. Or free. No exams.

Like I said, the discussion was running parallel to one on how to eliminate painful cycles when IUDs were not covered by the healthcare plan...So nice to see one is cared about...except of course when in need for care.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Mar 19, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> reproductive rights issue? They are NOT the same as normally debated in the USA. And do either trump the health or reporductive rights of the unborn? Not easy to answer and certainly not scientifically proven by either side.



I didn't know the unborn had any need for reproductive rights.

If an unborn baby reproduced... Would that be like a human turducken?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I didn't know the unborn had any need for reproductive rights.
> 
> If an unborn baby reproduced... Would that be like a human turducken?
> 
> Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk



:lol:


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

oaktree said:


> Man gives up his rights as soon as he is married. I have given up the right to be right and me being wrong is better than me being right..I think that is how the logic is.



Since you are wrong, isn't this post then...no wait...what?

Since you are wrong men don't give ups their rights?

Double talk....


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2012)

Why do I think most of what I said is being ignored. I thought you would do better than that. Well, anyway, to answer you:



granfire said:


> Well, how else are they going to check your prostate....yep, part of an all inclusive health check.
> 
> *Generally only when a need is perceived. Unless of course you see a urologist for some reason. Two things they seem inclined to do before even shaking hands is tell you to pee in a bottle, and bend over and brace. And they may do either or both for any health check.
> *
> ...



As an aside, the actions that sparked most of these debates, the Georgetown Law student who wants the rest of us to pay for her and her fellow student's "birth control" for sexual encounters, is requesting something that is absolutely rediculous. To try and mask it as a health issue is dishonest. It is neither a health issue nor a reproductive issue. Amazing to me is how many fall for that. She claims it is a reporductive issue. Therefore, all those who believe that women should have freedom to abort a fetus, jump on the bandwagon in defense of control over reproduction. Never realizing they are arguing for free condoms for sex flings rather than reproductive rights.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I didn't know the unborn had any need for reproductive rights.
> 
> *Well, they are the reproduction.  But put that aside then for another discussion.  Do they have any health rights?
> 
> ...



1


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Why do I think most of what I said is being ignored.  I thought you would do better than that.  Well, anyway, to answer you:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, the actions that sparked most of these debates, the Georgetown Law student who wants the rest of us to pay for her and her fellow student's birth control for sexual encounters, is requesting something that is absolutely rediculous.  To try and mask it as a health issue is dishonest.  It is neither a health issue nor a reproductive issue.  Amazing to me is how many fall for that.  She claims it is a reporductive issue.  Therefore, all those who believe that women should have freedom to abort a fetus, jump on the bandwagon in defense of control over reproduction.  Never realizing they are arguing for free condoms for sex flings rather than reproductive rights.




ah, no, you are going back on your argument.

Even when it is a health issue - and being disabled for a week counts in my book - you run into the problem that the simple fix is not covered. 
And you join the male chorus in the 'paying her for the sexual activity' thing - hey, the guys get their little miracle paid for. And it's more expensive, too. 

oh, right, that's the difference between a feminazi and a conservative male, right! 

Ah dangit...name calling again. 

And just a quick reminder: reproductive problems ARE health problems. 
While hardly a man ever suffered reproducing, things can go from peachy to hellashious for even healthy women in a heartbeat during pregnancy. it is still a life threatening event these days.


(but I guess billi didn't catch it...his prime linking days are late in the week...)


----------



## crushing (Mar 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> Even when it is a health issue - and being disabled for a week counts in my book - you run into the problem that the simple fix is not covered.
> *And you join the male chorus in the 'paying her for the sexual activity' thing *- hey, the guys get their little miracle paid for. And it's more expensive, too.



There are a few soloists and duets out there, but there certainly is no such "male chorus."  To claim otherwise is disenguous and only feeds the 'us v. them' tribalism that hinders disucssion and fogs common ground.


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

crushing said:


> There are a few soloists and duets out there, but there certainly is no such "male chorus."  To claim otherwise is disenguous and only feeds the 'us v. them' tribalism that hinders disucssion and fogs common ground.




LOL, if that's your story....


----------



## oftheherd1 (Mar 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> ah, no, you are going back on your argument.
> 
> Even when it is a health issue - and being disabled for a week counts in my book - you run into the problem that the simple fix is not covered.
> 
> ...



1


----------



## billc (Mar 19, 2012)

This is simple...the federal government should not tell a private company what they can or can't sell to their customers, which includes male or female reproductive health products or treatments.


----------



## oaktree (Mar 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> Since you are wrong, isn't this post then...no wait...what?
> 
> Since you are wrong men don't give ups their rights?
> 
> Double talk....


Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2012)

Excuse me? If the mother decides she doesn't want a baby and decides to have an abortion, the father has no rights to prevent her from assassinating his child.


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

oaktree said:


> Can I reserve the right to remain silent? :boing2:



yes.

Might be better so.


----------



## granfire (Mar 19, 2012)

billcihak said:


> This is simple...the federal government should not tell a private company what they can or can't sell to their customers, which includes male or female reproductive health products or treatments.



Slacker.

What took you so long?!


----------



## Big Don (Mar 19, 2012)

granfire said:


> Slacker.
> 
> What took you so long?!



!?
He wasn't arguing religious groups should be compelled to provide services against their morals.


----------



## WC_lun (Mar 20, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> Why do I think most of what I said is being ignored. I thought you would do better than that. Well, anyway, to answer you:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside, the actions that sparked most of these debates, the Georgetown Law student who wants the rest of us to pay for her and her fellow student's "birth control" for sexual encounters, is requesting something that is absolutely rediculous. To try and mask it as a health issue is dishonest. It is neither a health issue nor a reproductive issue. Amazing to me is how many fall for that. She claims it is a reporductive issue. Therefore, all those who believe that women should have freedom to abort a fetus, jump on the bandwagon in defense of control over reproduction. Never realizing they are arguing for free condoms for sex flings rather than reproductive rights.



You have no idea what you are talking about.  First off, you are not paying for her health insurance.  She and other students at Georgetown have private insurance, not paid for by the government.  Second, not once in her speech did she mention coverage for herself.  Niether did she say anything about sex or contraception. Everything in her speech actually had to do with women's health.  Also, this issue has absolutely zero to do with abortion.  Maybe you should actually read what she said.  Someone linked it in a thread here on the forums or a simple internet search would suffice.  It amazes me how many people want to argue about what she said and what it means without actually knowing what she said.  It just makes you look ignorant.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 20, 2012)

oftheherd1 said:


> *Not unless there is a medical need for a hysterectomy, or signed consent by both spouses (generally) for tubal ligation. I think most doctors would require both spouses to consent to a vasectomy as well. I have no idea how they handle a single male requesting a vasectomy. Regardless, ligation is a generally held to be a reproductive issue, not a health issue.*



When I got my vasectomy, as a single man, the only thing they did was emphasize to both myself and my girlfriend, was that this was effectively a 'forever' procedure, and that I should not expect it to be reversible. She was not asked to provide consent. Which is precisely as it should be. Your reproductive system is yours, like all parts of your body. It does not belong to your spouse, and legally, you should not need your spouses permission to do anything you want to it. Being able to get your partner's buy-in is the sign of a good relationship, but neither the law nor medical ethics can forcibly require you to have it; to do otherwise is a gross violation of personal autonomy.


----------



## granfire (Mar 20, 2012)

Big Don said:


> !?
> He wasn't arguing religious groups should be compelled to provide services against their morals.



No, he argued the other side, how dare Obama care provide it...I mean force the church to provide it.

Or how the evil communists are curtailing his right.
He is presumably a guy, right?


----------



## granfire (Mar 20, 2012)

Big Don said:


> Excuse me? If the mother decides she doesn't want a baby and decides to have an abortion, the father has no rights to prevent her from assassinating his child.



A shade theatrical....

However.
A) if he has a relationship with the mother that should not happen 
B) if she is that much of a b...female dog, do you need to chain yourself to her? 

And until you can carry a baby to term and give birth to it...I am sorry, the male contribution is not equal to the woman's. Should be clear, really.

However, aside from the asinine ideas that had been discussed, some have more merit on the premise of leveling the playing field.

You know, fr women not having to pay through their nose, out of pocket for the medication that eases their life, even though it is primarily designed to prevent pregnancy.
As in the cases Ms Fluke argued to control growths on ovaries. And no, not all brands and formulation can provide the therapeutic effect.
Compared to the little miracle worker for guys that is often passed out with no real need, covered by providers. At over 22 dollars a pop...it's a sizable expense.
And while the intrusive examinations are part of the thorough health check that every man of a certain age ought to undergo, I have my doubts there is that serious concern for a guy who really wants the little pickmeup, not real ED treatment. 

Or having the woman bring the spouses consent for  tubal ligation...

As I said, parallel to the discussion a group of women discussed the joys of being female, with cramps, debilitatingly so, headaches, and strong bleeding, for some for a week...with the less intrusive solution being (gasp, yes) birth control not covered by their provider. 

Seems to me that it really would be to the benefit of the bigger social economic picture to provide people with the means so they don't have to be sidelined every month for several day when nature calls with a vengeance...


What those silly bills do (or would do if some of them where not so ridiculous) is shine a light on how some laws do curtail freedoms of 50% of the population on grounds of 'conservancy' or 'religious freedom'


----------



## crushing (Mar 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> As I said, parallel to the discussion a group of women discussed the joys of being female, with cramps, debilitatingly so, headaches, and strong bleeding, for some for a week...with the less intrusive solution being (gasp, yes) birth control not covered by their provider.



No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments.  If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work.  Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception.   Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?


----------



## cdunn (Mar 20, 2012)

crushing said:


> No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments. If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work. Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception. Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?



Given that the default from the insurance company is to include them, as they save the insurance company, and thus the employer, significant wads of money, to the order of $5 per $1 spent on the Pill, you have religious corporations paying extra for the priviledge of denying their female employees, and, potentially the wives of their male employees access to hormonal medications... Well, I'd guess that forcing sex to have unneccesary consequences is of the highest importance to these people.

These are the same people that are pushing bills that say that doctors are allowed to lie to patients about the health of fetuses to prevent abortion, that are pushing bills that make it preferable to let women die before you start an abortion, and to make it legal for employers to ask for proof that you're seeking hormones for non-contraceptive purposes.. and, as a not-at-all-overlooked side effect, to fire you if you ask for them for contraceptive purposes.


----------



## crushing (Mar 20, 2012)

cdunn said:


> These are the same people that are pushing bills that say that doctors are allowed to lie to patients about the health of fetuses to prevent abortion, that are pushing bills that make it preferable to let women die before you start an abortion, and to make it legal for employers to ask for proof that you're seeking hormones for non-contraceptive purposes.. and, as a not-at-all-overlooked side effect, to fire you if you ask for them for contraceptive purposes.



Aren't these a couple of local bills in a couple different states. I didn't realize that _they_ are the same people. I certainly hope the voters in those states don't support such bills as you have described.


----------



## cdunn (Mar 20, 2012)

crushing said:


> Aren't these a couple of local bills in a couple different states. I didn't realize that _they_ are the same people. I certainly hope the voters in those states don't support such bills as you have described.



HR 358 of 2011 was passed by the US house at the urging of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and extremist groups such as the Family Research Council. We already have states charging women with murder for miscarriage... And it all ends up the same rathole of religious "morality". 

Voters, meanwhile, got the great switcheroo pumped on them - They elected Republicans in order to get jobs and economic recovery, and instead we got a broad assault on everything that's been beneficial to society since the New Deal.


----------



## granfire (Mar 20, 2012)

crushing said:


> No, it's not birth control but a hormonal medication (that may have a contraceptive side effect) that is often indicated for such ailments.  If only birth control was necessary to alleviate such such issues then abstinence, caps, rings, condoms, outcourse, or withdrawal methods would work.  Also, if it the medication were seen as the hormonal medication for multiple indications rather than just contraception, then may some of these more stringent religious organizations wouldn't take issue with it being prescribed for the uses other than contraception.   Maybe they already don't have a problem with it, but no one has asked?



I am pretty sure If you were doubled over in pain every single month you would bother to ask your insurance to pay for it.

This is not like an occasional stomach flu. This is an event that occurs every single month, for nearly 30 years. So regular you can set your watch by!
And lets not split hairs. Whether it is hormonal medication with BC as side effect or BC with eliviation of symptoms as side effects. Simulating pregnancy - as most BC do - to the body does stop menstrual problems. It's that simple. A condom does not. (but a condom does lessen the spread of STDs, which cost the economy dearly)

make it simple: cover the damn crap. Like the pill - the blue one - is covered. 

And you end the sexist discrimination.

See, the pill is prescribed many times to regulate things. At a time when pregnancy is not desired anyhow (like really young women, older teens) 
It always leaves a taste of uncaring despotism when the ailments of women are brushed under the rug. It's not a minor thing!
It is incredibly condescending for a guy to tell a woman what healthcare she can or cannot have. And that is what it boils down to! 

I mean, having women count the days until they qualify for hysterectomy, really?! Is that what we want? 

I don't think institutions do have the right to force their believes on the people.
The people within those institutions have the right to live their believes. 

I think it is wrong for health insurance to pick and chose what they cover.
That includes preexisting conditions. and lets face it, being female is being treated like a preexisting condition.


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 20, 2012)

People like the Minority Whip noted in the OP always want to shift attention from the question that really matters in these cases.  When is a fetus considered a human with all of the rights that accompany that distinction?

If we were only talking access to birth control and about what people could do behind closed doors, then we're discussion individual reproductive/sexual rights.

At some point, we need to have a rational discussion about when a fetus becomes a human.  I've read papers from various bio-ethicists who put that line anywhere from conception to three years old.  My inclination is to put the line much closer to conception.

Practically, this is why we need States Rights on the matter.  Smaller groups could actually decide things and a number of solutions could be compared to each other.  Eventually, I think it would all balance out.


----------



## granfire (Mar 20, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> People like the Minority Whip noted in the OP always want to shift attention from the question that really matters in these cases.  When is a fetus considered a human with all of the rights that accompany that distinction?
> 
> If we were only talking access to birth control and about what people could do behind closed doors, then we're discussion individual reproductive/sexual rights.
> 
> ...



I am not sure where you read the thing - anything - about a fetus.

And maybe we could have the discussion in the future.

If you read that in the 'right to choose', well, there are many choices to be made by women.
And as it is, a great many involve somebody else having a word in it, somebody who is not even related to the woman, namely insurance corporations.


----------



## crushing (Mar 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> I am pretty sure If you were doubled over in pain every single month you would bother to ask your insurance to pay for it.



Quite right.  And nowhere have I said insurance should not cover it.  Maybe you are thinking of other posts when you respond to mine?


----------



## granfire (Mar 20, 2012)

crushing said:


> Quite right.  And nowhere have I said insurance should not cover it.  Maybe you are thinking of other posts when you respond to mine?



No, I am talking about reality.
That even though the condition warrants the treatments, the insurance does not cover it.
Full stop.
Because it's classified as birth control.
Sucks to be female.


----------



## crushing (Mar 20, 2012)

granfire said:


> No, I am talking about reality.
> That even though the condition warrants the treatments, the insurance does not cover it.
> Full stop.
> Because it's classified as birth control.
> Sucks to be female.



Sorry.  I thought in your responses you were trying to disagree with me.  I'm still not entirely sure.  At any rate, it shouldn't suck to be anyone. (1)



1.  Except douchebags.  There should be something negative about being a douchebag that would discourage membership in that subset.


----------

