Bush has appointed someone to oversee Federal Family Planning Programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. If you know anything about this administration, you have a pretty good idea what that means. Let me linky to an article wherein they pull some absurd quotes. Let me remind you, this woman is in charge of your tax money. Loads of it. Delightful.
If you will recall, the man who previously was in this position stepped down due to ethical issues – his medical practice was being investigated. He has some lovely ideas as well, like the fact that women who engage in premarital sex become unable to form long-term relationships, and also that women who engage in sex with a number of partners alter their brain chemistry so they become unable to establish bonds in relationships. Wikipedia him.
I did a report, and presentation in college about the states’ failed attempts to effectively deal with sexual education. I compared it to Uganda and argued Uganda did a better job. And as backwards as Uganda might be (illegalized homosexuality, anyone?), they have a more forwards approach to sex and sex education.
Adults in Uganda recognize that as cultures have changed, our bodies haven’t. We live longer, we marry later, but our hormones become active at about the same time as they always have. They understand that young people will want to and probably will choose to engage in sexual acts. So they educate them to be faithful to their partners and use condoms. They also advise abstinence.
I have no problem being told that abstinence is safe, reliable, wondeful, etc. I’m sure it is. I’ve had friends all over the place – friends who had sex at 12 (bit messed up), friends who had sex in high school, friends who had sex for the first time in or just out of college. No one can argue that it’s not safer physically to be abstinent or to delay having sex or to limit the number of partners you have. And no one is.
Here’s where my problem comes in – misrepresenting or making up facts to try to scare people into not having sex. I don’t know how much readers are up on the abstinence only programs that are currently supported by your taxes – but they’re pretty ridiculous. Rep. Henry Waxman released a report a few years ago about the content of those programs, here it is. It’s a good read, and not too long, so I urge you to take a look.
But what this report just touches on, and what I’d like to touch on, is this. Societies that deny people the right to know about sex and deny them the right to access contraception and family planning services are inherently sexist.
These programs deny that women want to have sex. They treat women as emotionally weak, incapable of making decisions without bringing their emotions into the forefront. They treat men as stereotypes, too. They argue that men don’t need emotional preparation for sex, and that men have lower standards regarding their sexual partners because they’re so primally motivated. They do both genders and healthy relationships a disservice, even though they claim they want to preserve families.
Denying people access to contraceptives and refusing to force health insurance companies to cover the medication is plainly sexist as well. Women stand to lose more by having children. Let’s face it, a baby is a big parasite living on your flesh and blood for nine months. I don’t care how cute it is when it pops out, that’s what it is. Women are more responsible for caring for the child. Women primarily make dr’s appointments, take off to care for a sick child and etc, which impacts her career and her free time. Women stand to lose their freedoms much more than men by having a baby.
I’m not denying the role that men have or could have in raising a child. From my experience at a dr’s office, as a secretary, as someone looking over time sheets – I’ve gathered that women play the care-giver role. Maybe it’s inherent in us, and maybe we want to – but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be allowed to control when we have kids. Not only is it best for us, but it’s best for the childs. WoDM and I could have a baby tomorrow, but it would be an awful idea. We wouldn’t have the money or time or space for a baby. Access to contraceptives guarantees healthier families – it means parents will be prepared and be able to satisfy the child’s emotional and physical needs. Access to contraceptives is what kept my lovely catholic parents from popping out 4 more kids they wouldn’t have been able to house, thank goodness.
And finally, I’ve been on birth control before for entirely non-sexually related reasons. Women are often put on birth control to regulate periods. Supporting an insurance company’s right not to cover that is basically supporting discriminating against women because of their biology - and all the complications that might arise from that. Insurance companies cover my yearly pap smear, they covered my mom’s biopsy of polyps in her uterus a while back. Why shouldn’t they cover birth control?
I’m not surprised about who Bush has appointed. I’m also not surprised these people are taking over our country with their babies. I swear, sometimes I wish I could sterilize people – like the woman linked to on Fark last week who held her child out a car window while the car was driving. I’m not saying the government should take responsibility for someone’s stupid choices. All I’m saying is that in the end we’re going to. That parent is going to tie up our legal system. That kid is gonna end up in jail or on welfare or abusing his kids so then the state has to step in. If you don’t want people dependent on government – treat them like intelligent human beings. Give them the facts and tell them to think for themselves. It’s not dangerous, it’s the safest thing you could possibly do.
Have I mentioned lately how frustrated I am with bologna politics? With ideologies that don’t make any sense whatsoever? I’m getting to the Thoreau-point. I’m going to go hide in the woods and not pay taxes if I have no real say in the idiots who decide how to spend my money. My list of people I would actually vote for gets shorter every day.
On the plus side, Colbert still has a chance with me in ’08.
K.
The contents of this blog entry may not reflect the views of the Webmaster of Doom, Michael.
Post a Comment