Because if you aren't careful, one of these could be yours.
I've been having a difficult time trying to understand the purpose behind these ridiculous debates, and perhaps because I'm a woman, perhaps because I'm young, perhaps because I tend to think these types of things do not need to be legislated, I doubt I ever will. The most recent comment on the issue of birth control, who should be having sex and how consenting adults should go about having children comes from a Republican WOMAN, who said if married couples don't want to get pregnant they should not have sex. Married couples. Shouldn't have sex.
Unless they want kids.
According to Ms. Blankenbeker (I assume she's married because Republicans are all about the family, and I so want to know what her husband thinks about all this), abstinence is an affordable form of birth control that is available to everyone, regardless of insurance. She also reminds us that condoms are available over the counter to anyone, with or without insurance. So, condoms and not having sex are the only ways to prevent pregnancy, according to this woman. Married couples who love each other but who aren't ready for or don't want more kids better hope their condoms don't break...
Also, what about married couples who do not want to have kids? I have no intention of having kids at any point in my life, but I do hope that I'll be married at some point in my life, presumably while I'm still physically capable of conceiving. Does this mean I am not to have sex with my husband unless I change my mind about having kids? Relying on condoms isn't realistic for me because I'm allergic (or maybe just sensitive) to latex, and it can be very painful to use them.
These comments were made at a hearing designed to urge Obama to drop the requirement that insurance plans offer birth control, which makes me believe they're inflammatory and actually designed to encourage Obama to stick to his guns. Could she be saying such ridiculous things, things which Republicans don't agree with and the American public doesn't agree with, to ruin her party? A Republican in Democrat's clothing, perhaps? I doubt it, but I don't think this notion should be ignored.
At the same hearing, another Republican woman claimed that birth control pills lead to prostate cancer. Funny thing, though, is women don't have prostates and men don't take birth control pills (yet). So hooooooow would a medication cause a disease/side effect in someone who isn't taking it? It's not second hand smoke: men don't get second hand estrogen when their partners take hormonal birth control. This woman, a Ms. Notter (again, wonder what the hubby thinks), says she was referring to high levels of estrogen in the environment, which is actually true. Men, however, are not affected by it. Frogs, fish and other wildlife can be, but still not on a common or regular basis. So I'm not sure where she's getting her information.
I've always felt fortunate to have been born at the time I was, rather than even just 20 years earlier when women were less able to live freely or openly. I'm glad that I can be 26 and unmarried and not be an outcast, that I can skip having kids without it being weird (it's still a little weird, but enough women are opting out now), that I don't have to live under my parents, that going to college wasn't to meet an eligible man who would make enough money to support me. But when my government starts deciding whether or not my access to birth control is valid, or having an opinion about my sexual activities, that's when I wish I was born later. I know, I have to believe, that when my generation is older and our kids generation starts learning about these fucking ridiculous legislative attempts and ask what we were thinking we'll have to shrug and say we tried, but people were still bigoted and sexist and puritanist back then, but at least now the country is a better place for all of its citizens, young and old, gay and straight, male and female.