Equivalence between Viagra and abortions? Not really...

[ljm2002]

...because pregnancy is something that happens only to women, not to men. Also it does involve the beginning of another life. Even so, it may help if we use the Viagra example.

Let's say that there was a movement that was against erectile dysfunction drugs. Saw it as akin to sex toys. Created an atmosphere of outrage over the fact that such things exist. Then let's say someone in Congress introduced an amendment to the health care bill with these provisions, and it passed:

-- no direct public funding for Viagra, Cialis, etc.
-- anyone who gets any assistance for insurance, cannot buy a policy that includes any ED drug
-- anyone who gets any assistance for insurance, cannot buy their own policy, on their own nickel, to obtain any ED drug

Now, would you say that some people's access to these drugs was being inhibited? Or would you say "Well they can pay for the drugs out of pocket, so they still have access."?

And keep in mind, the ability to obtain an ED drug is not time-sensitive. Not in the way that it is to obtain an abortion. So if you have to scrounge for money to get your ED drug fix, well waiting a week or two won't be a big deal. When you're pregnant, on the other hand, and need an abortion, every day counts.

I sincerely hope this helps to clarify why the Stupak amendment is a big deal and is a real punch in the gut to women, and to poor women in particular.