Women’s Health = Not Having Babies

Of course, all of us have now heard that contraception is a very, very important part of Women’s Health™ (can someone help me register that as a trademark because I think that would be kind of funny if I owned it?).

We’ve had this fact pounded into our skulls by the current administration and their media minions.

Google thinks balancing yogurt and strawberries are an important part of Women's Health.

Women’s Health™ (yes, I’m going to keep writing it like that and in fact, every time you read it I want you to go “Ahhh” in your head in a kind of a sing-songy way like a chorus of angels would if the clouds had just parted and a powerful beam of sunlight was shining down upon the word) is different from regular health.

And it’s actually much more important.

We have been told repeatedly by our esteemed Commander in Health that it is so important that EVERY insurance program should cover it.  No matter what.

Not only should they cover it, but they should cover it WITHOUT a co-pay.

Because, you know, asking women to pay $20 for a prescription is evil and horrible and mean and most likely, (cringe) Republican.

These women are healthy. You can tell because they are not having babies.

Now, say your child has an ear infection or pneumonia, you can pay $20 for that because it’s not a Women’s Health™ issue it’s just a plain-old, regular health issue.

If a young mother has a heart condition and needs medication, well she can pay $20 for that too because it is not a matter of Women’s Health™ (“Ahhh…”).  It’s just a matter of regular health.

If that same young mother wants to have sex without having a baby, well she damn well better not have to pay $20 for that!  Because as well know, that is a matter of Women’s Health™.

So, it seems like Women’s Health™ is all the parts of healthcare that have to do with uteruses (or is it uteri?) and sex and pregnancy and not-getting pregnant and taking pills that might kill babies.

Pretty clear, right?

Oh wait, but there is one big exception: Women’s Health™ does not cover pregnancy or childbirth or any care related to either one.

Nope.  Not one bit.

NOT covered under Women's Health. You must pay extra for this.

Oh wait, I just thought of this – pregnancy IS a part of Women’s Health™, but only if you want to kill your baby with the morning-after pill.  If you want to keep your baby, well that’s on your own dime because it is not a part of Women’s Health™.

Got that?

You see, pregnancy (where you want your baby to live) and childbirth are extra services.  If you want them, you don’t just have to pay a $20 co-pay.  You actually have to pay extra for your insurance.  Lots extra.  Like several thousand dollars per year per insured woman extra.

And your insurance company doesn’t even have to offer you the extra service, if they don’t feel like it (most don’t).

There is really only one conclusion to draw here:  Women’s Health™ is all about supporting women to not have babies.  It’s not at all about supporting their choices.  If it was, it would demand coverage for “not having babies” and for “having babies.”

But it doesn’t.

It actually penalizes women who choose to have babies and makes them pay more.

"Let me be clear, pregnancy and having babies have nothing to do with Women's Health. It's totally different and you should pay extra for it."

Patrick Thornton has a real job (sort of).  He pays lots and lots of money for health insurance for his family.  He pays extra money for maternity coverage.  He realizes that this story about the current healthcare fiasco may constitute beating a very dead horse, but he doesn’t care.  The views expressed here may or may not be his own.  It depends who’s asking.

6,906 views

Categories:Uncategorized

40 thoughts on “Women’s Health = Not Having Babies

  1. Lidia says:

    What is the source of that quote “”Let me be clear, pregnancy and having babies have nothing to do with Women’s Health. It’s totally different and you should pay extra for it.”

    When I google it, I only get references back to this article.

  2. Aaron Dewees says:

    Right on Patrick. Here are some other thoughts that came to me over the past few days:

    So what is the dilemma? I have been extremely proud of the Catholic Bishops in their responses to this matter. I have been proud of many of my fellow Catholics (many, by NO means all). I have been encouraged & impressed by the outpouring of support from other Christian denominations & Faiths (it was awesome to see the 6 or so leaders of their respective faiths/traditions sitting together before congress recently). But the ever-increasing response that we are seeing now – “Where are the Women?” is starting to drown out or water down the real issue at hand. It seems that so many are missing the point – this isn’t just about contraception…it is first and foremost about religious freedom. But since it is “kinda” about contraception I can understand their use of this tactic. I have had a few of my friends and colleagues argue this point with me and I was able to diffuse the situation with two points that I am not hearing on the national stage.

    First, when it comes to matters of health & medicine (and this is after all being billed as a healthcare issue, right?) we don’t say a man can’t be an OB-Gyn because he can’t ever be pregnant and doesn’t have a uterus or ovaries. We don’t dismiss a Psychiatrist who has never personally dealt with a mental illness from being able to care for those who have. We don’t say a male oncologist can’t treat a woman for breast cancer because he doesn’t understand what it is like to have breasts. We don’t say a heterosexual therapist can’t help a homosexual…in fact we say they MUST learn how. There is no doubt that being a woman gives special insight and credibility to caring for other women that I (as a man) will not understand. But I don’t believe it makes a man completely incapable of understanding the plight of a woman. In fact, my wife and I practice NFP, and she will be the first to tell you that I understand her fertility and keep the charts better than she does. It is quite humorous when she tells her friends…”I rely on my husband to understand and follow my cycles J” Just imagine the text message: ”Honey, when is my peak day?” My second counterpoint: so let’s say for arguments sake we should leave men out of the discussion on issues relating to a woman’s fertility. Doesn’t that mean that all mean should step away from the argument – those for the HHS mandate as well as those against? Then the president should actually recuse himself because he doesn’t know what it is like to take contraception and he doesn’t have ovaries or a uterus so how could he possibly speak to this aspect of women’s health? When the Supreme Court decided Roe v Wade – the Justices who can’t possibly understand pregnancy should have recused themselves. How can a man, who will never be pregnant, decide if ending a pregnancy is Right or Wrong? I am sure you get my point!

  3. Brenda says:

    In the instances you are citing, you believe contraceptives are necessary to protect people from the consequences of their actions. Here’s a thought… How about not engaging in risky behavior?

  4. WorkingMommaof3 says:

    Patrick- what source document or speech was your Obama quote cited from?
    “Let me be clear, pregnancy and having babies have nothing to do with Women’s Health. It’s totally different and you should pay extra for it.”. I’m having a dialogue with a friend on it and would like to include the supporting info for it. Thank you!

    1. Patrick Thornton says:

      Unfortunately, he said that at a press conference in my head. But I am 98% certain that he would say it. After all, his actions certainly indicate such sentiment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.