LAws ro restrict male rights

[granfire]

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

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

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

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

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

All the Best,


NINA TURNER
Minority Whip
Ohio Senate--25th District
1 Capital Square | Room 223
Columbus, OH 43215
614/466.8543
[email protected]

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

 

[ETinCYQX]

...

What?

I didn't think feminazi's existed anymore.

 

[WC_lun]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

: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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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.

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

These are birth control issues?

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?

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.

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....

I am aware of that use, and failing another better option, I would consider that a health issue. Again, not a reproductive issue.

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...

Well, that's a whole other matter that is probably best worked out between you and Billi.

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...

No it doesn't considering the makeup of most legislative bodies. Only the electorate can change that. Maybe most women don't consider that a worthwhile profession?

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.

Well, again, what part of your argument is health related, and what part is reproductive related? You say reproductive health. Reproductive rights, and health rights are not the same.

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]

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?

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

Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk

1

 

[granfire]

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]

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]

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]

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.

You have me there, I don't know if that use is covered as a health issue or not. But as I stated, if there is no better option, I would consider the use of birth control pills that regulate ovulation and menstration as a health use, and that it should be 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.

Well, I didn't know that. I have to agree I don't want to pay for that as a way for men to just have unlimited sex with unlimited partners.

As far as I recall, she was calling for the use of condoms to be paid for as a 'reproductive' health issue to use in the sexual encounters she seems to want a lot of. Others have tried to expand that. As to the guys, if there are any out there who are throwing themselves into the national public eye and agreeing with her, I hadn't heard of it. But if they do, they would get the same derision and disgust I give the Georgetown Law student.

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

I don't know. Define a feminazi and maybe I can give you my opinion. I think I am a conservative male with (EDIT: make that "on many issues" please. Be nice granfire.

I can just imagine what retors are going through your mind, because they would be mine.

) many issues but please define that as well so I am sure what you mean by it.

Ah dangit...name calling again.

Doesn't bother me if you do. I am fairly thick skinned.

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.

Maybe we aren't defining the same things in the same way. Medical problems with the reproductive system probably are health problems. Pregnancy has always had the potential to be life threatening. That is a sad fact of life. But asking me to pay for someone's pregnancy prevention in order for them to have sex at all opportunities is not a morality I wish to embrace.


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

Maybe he is sitting it out to see if we will destroy each other.

1

 

[billc]

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.