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.

4,289 views

Categories:Uncategorized

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

  1. Anna says:

    Excellent article, Patrick, and so true! I have been so upset about the infamous Obama-HHS mandate since the whole thing exploded, that your article was like a breath of fresh air… serious but fun! Your analogies were smart with just the right dose of good humor… just what I needed! God bless you!

  2. Michelle Larson says:

    Patrick,

    Thank you for this well formed and humorous piece! The way I see it is thusly: the reduction of woman to a sex object wasn’t enough. Now woman has been reduced to dollar signs – the goal is to be a single dollar sign. The bottom line for the country and insurance company had better be in the black, and that (according to the “intelligencia”) can only come from the reduction of monies for maternity care, schooling, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security…which means we had better stop women from “breeding”! How ironic it is that somehow having fewer people paying into the system will generate less outgo on the government’s back. Hmm… Doesn’t seem to have worked for Japan, Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Germany, Russia – shall I continue? But don’t you worry! We’re America, and that kind of implosion just cannot happen to us. God bless you, your fingertips and your wit!

  3. Susannah says:

    I wish I could have written this!! It’s something I’ve been saying, but not as cleverly nor with as much humor. Well done!!! Love the captions, too!!

  4. Zach says:

    This is a fair argument. All women’s health issues should be covered without co-pay, Whether it’s for contraception or makin’ babies ;)

    I’m sure that’s what you’re saying…right?

  5. Mary says:

    The new feminists have thrown away all the first feminists’ anti-abortion arguments and have declared that women who have children and want to raise their children are anti-woman and anti-choice. They feel that women who are not using birth control are not equal to men. Have they seen a woman give birth?? Can a man do that? Girl power.

  6. Matt Seiwert says:

    Well, you are wrong. Please explain your article in light of the fact that the ACA not only expands the level of care and support available to low income and middle income women through medicare, state subsides, etc. Please also explain your assertion that maternity is ignored as a part of comprehensive women’s health in with regard to the ACA’s provisions that maternity care, which up until now has been sparsely covered by many insurance providers in their core service packages. It will now be something that they must roll into said core packages of essential care, meaning that one will not have to worry about purchasing maternity care as a separate rider.

    http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/progress/ppacamaternity/

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.