I read this article recently and although I do not agree with everything she has to say, it makes a lot of good points that highlight women's issues when it comes to reproduction. I am soo sick of hearing candidates and politicians sound off about various sexual and reproductive rights. It just makes my blood boil to hear the bills that are trying to be passed in some states that require a woman to carry a fetus until it is naturally passed from the body, no matter what. This means that if a fetus dies in the womb a woman must carry around a dead child in her body, a constant reminder of her loss and suffering, a potential medical risk, until the body passes it out. Some bodies don't. Some poor woman could be stuck her whole life with this baby in her, potentially? That just makes me sad. At that point, there is no moral issue that I can see. I get it if you don't want to give people the option to abort because a fetus is a life, I don't necessarily agree but I get that is what you are going for, but once that life is gone what is that point? Fetal cells decay quickly and can become very dangerous to a woman. I can tell you firsthand that the pain and repercussions of those decaying cells can be excruciating. I did not have any extraction procedures and passed my child naturally, the cells left in my uterus dug into the wall linings and produced a very harmful bacteria that has left me scarred and in bad health. My uterus never contracted enough to shrink back to the size its supposed to be so it has helped me gain weight and is putting pressure on my other organs. It has depleted an already messed up immune system and caused soooo many other things that I'm not even going to list. Not to mention the side effects from the meds and procedures I have had since to try and get healthy.
I just don't get what it accomplishes to make a woman continue to carry a fetus that has already died.
I do not understand how a government can try to force a woman to die for her child either. If a pregnancy or an unborn child is specifically life threatening to a woman it should be between her and her doctor. If it is a situation where you can save the baby or the mother, the government should really not be involved. You should not be able to force someone to die for somebody else, that should be your choice.
To be honest, I think the whole controversy with the insurance/contraceptives thing is pretty dumb. If you work for a religiously affiliated institution that does not agree with contraceptives you should probably expect that they won't pay for yours. If your job has nothing to do with religion then their decision should not be based on that person's specific beliefs. I still don't think you have a RIGHT to those contraceptives though. It is wrong for one man in a business to choose not to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives because of his personal beliefs. Insurance companies do not hand out condoms to men so women cannot really expect them to throw free birth control pills their way. I do think there is a middle area as in most issues. If you have a medical need for them then maybe there should be an option for some insurance coverage but it becomes hard to define NEED so I see how that wouldn't be very practical. My doctor requires me to be on the pill because it is potentially life threatening for me to get pregnant right at this time. This is also the best way to get the estrogen and other hormones I need to heal my organs. My doctor deems it is something I need but I could also get these benefits from other things if I had to so that NEED line is blurry. If you choose to use contraceptives then you choose to pay for them. Can't afford them? Don't have sex then. I do believe that prescriptions of all kinds, including birth control, should be more available and lower in price.
It is only a small sect, but it is also wrong to fire a woman because you found out she was using contraceptives, that does not effect her job unless she's getting busy at work and in that case she deserves to get fired.
Right on, Liz!
ReplyDelete