The War on Women - I am looking at you Virginia!

Caveat: politics is contributing to the support/opposition of these bills/actions, so keep that in mind.  However, I do not see this war on chicks going away, so the point is always relevant!

Over the last few weeks, several things have gone down that directly insert government and, more so, politics into women's rights and health protection. Some key issues: Catholic employers not having to cover contraception, a Virginia bill that would require a trans-vaginal ultrasound in order to perform an abortion, abstinence only sex-ed, and another Virginia bill that says life begins at contraception.

The role of government, as opposed to the private sector, is to promote the well being and safety of the public through laws and rules.  I do not see how that duty spreads to telling women they can't take birth control or perform a function that does not directly impact any one else (except for maybe the seed planter). I think there is a key difference between government getting involved in (or more appropriately, protecting) healthcare/women's reproductive service and politics.  Government should have a role in protecting such rights, but politics is taking center stage to limit that.


Now, Virginia - your name was said to be an homage to "The Virgin Queen," Elizabeth I.  She was known for, among many other things, her religious tolerance.  And, now we have religion (mainly Catholic and evangelical churches) trying to insert (pun intended) their views on women.  Not men, just women. While Elizabeth may have been unmarried, bore no children, and was labeled a virgin, she could be considered an early symbol of women's liberation and freedom.  She, generally, chose not to marry - she brushed off several suitors for various reasons (and yes, they may have been political, but she did it); she had many male advisers around her, but she made the choices; she had lovers; she rallied her people around her; she did it by her rules.

Congress then convenes a panel to discuss the impact of the health care bill requirement of providing contraception with NO WOMEN present.  Really?!  In response I think we should have a discussion about requiring vasectomies to men who don't pay child support or have more than three baby mommas.  A panel full of women who have not received said money, and their children who are the real victims (I would sign up for that!).

I don't see them telling men that they can't take Viagara or get a vasectomy if they don't want to have kids.  It appears that these people believe that reproductive control rests solely on women, but don't think we should take pill or have an abortion, so we are effectively handcuffed to rely on men to get their timing right (look how the rhythm method worked for Mitt Romney). Women are then burdened to ensure that their partner pulls out at the right time or else we are stuck with the burden.  We can't help the fact that most men can't control themselves and misgauge when the "right" time to pull out is.  I wonder if the miracles of science ever create a "man pill" that will kill his swimmers, would the church or government oppose that? Probably not.

So, now, since we can't have the pill (and men are stupid and don't know when to pull out), we get pregnant.  You are telling me I have to get something inserted inside me to get an ultrasound - isn't that what got us here in the first place? When I had my tumor, I had to have one of those done, and that was NOT comfortable at all.  Women are already making a life changing decision (and that includes her choice to keep the child), and now you want to treat us like children and show us a picture? Do you think we didn't think about our options before?  Believe it or not, women who walk into a doctor's office or clinic have agonized over her choice - these women are not emotionally void people who don't think about the many options in front of her when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.  Who are you to assume that these women can't make decisions for themselves? 

It is a human's choice to have sex (or not), who to have sex with, and how they are to protect themselves from STD's and unwanted pregnancies. It is also a person's prerogative to follow or live by the tenets of the religion that they so choose.  Its funny how the Church is inserting itself into this conversation when most Catholics (myself included) believe in the fundamental right of and utilize birth control.  I am not saying the Church should pass out condoms or other forms of contraception at mass, but my decision to use contraception is between me and God.

And, this doesn't even consider women (and those GIRLS) who became pregnant because of rape or incest.  These women were violated because someone put something between her legs that SHE did not WANT there.  Now, you want to stick something else in there? While many believe terminating a pregnancy is acceptable in cases of rape or when the health of the mother is jeopardized, some still believe that abortion is never acceptable.  So, you are saying that a woman or girl who is raped and gets pregnant must give birth to her attackers child?  There is a lifetime of therapy ahead for both the mother and child in that case.

President Obama backed off of requiring Catholic health providers from dishing out contraceptives, but employees must be able to access it through insurance plans.  But now the government is now requiring women to go through hoops to have an abortion.  We are not in the 17th century when the Catholic Church ran the world - why are you giving into them, but limiting women's access to services?

As Amy Poehler said: DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!