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.

6,031 views

Categories:Uncategorized

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

  1. F Jones says:

    This post is spot on. All women’s health issues should be covered without co-pay – its certainly what Jesus would do.

  2. whistling in the dark says:

    So, let me think this through. We must push for “Women’s Health” being free and it’s meaning is that women are to have sex freely without conceiving a child, the physiological purpose of sexual relations in the first place. So then, aren’t we now turning women into the female version eunuchs? I guess God is not going to hit ‘like’ on this idea!

  3. Name *Adam says:

    Great post! I looked into Matt’s post a little too which was good to see as well. However, you’ll notice that the nomenclature of woman’s health is not used as often as it is used when talking about contraception. I would like to raise a point that my girl friend keeps making. When will pads and tampons cease to be ignored as part of women’s health. Seems to be more of a need by all women than contraception. The fact that basic products like these are overlooked shows that “women’s health” truly is a sly campaign for advancing the anti-pregnancy agenda.

  4. Theo says:

    This is the most misogynistic piece of writing I have ever read.

    1. Patrick Thornton says:

      Dear Theo,

      From your comment I can only surmise that you have either:

      A. Not read very much writing.

      Or

      B. Don’t know the meaning of the word “misogynistic.”

      Lucky for you a steady diet of extra reading can cure you of either condition!

      May I suggest you begin with all of my blog posts and some additional work at http://www.dictionary.com?

  5. Pat says:

    Are there any sources for this?

  6. ze catholique says:

    Folks, maybe it’s time to drop health insurance altogether and focus on being healthy, not fixing sick. Due to job loss and other economic issues, we lost our health insurance 4 years ago and have not gained it back. Honestly, we don’t miss it. We go to a local doctor once a year for a checkup that costs our family of 7 $250, much less than a monthly premium. He’s told us repeatedly that our kids are in better shape than most kids. Why? We focus on intakes: organic foods, less sugars, less processed food, no foods with hormones, antibiotics, or pesticides, no pharmaceutical consumption, etc. Our kids rarely get sick for more than a day. You should try it. Prevention is a lot cheaper and doesn’t compromise your moral principles.

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.