Introducing…

bitch8.jpg

The Reproductive Justice and Gender special coverage section at Alternet, edited by yours truly.

I’ve just started work on the section, so I’m still getting my grounding and figuring everything out. But I’m very, very excited about it, and I think it’ll be a great opportunity to showcase the many stories, blog posts and organization efforts promoting reproductive freedom and gender equality. I’m hoping that the section will be a good platform to highlight traditionally marginalized voices in feminist communities.

I’m going to spend the next few weeks reaching out to bloggers, writers and organizations whose work I think deserves greater visibility. If you’re a pro-choice blogger, writer, or organization member, please feel free to email me with links to your work and permissions to reproduce it on Alternet. If you’re a reader and you come across something for the section, send it my way. (You can send stuff to the address listed in the About Jill section, or jill -at- alternet -dot- org).

I’m curious to hear from all of you: What would you like to see covered in the Repro Justice section? What kinds of information and resources would you find helpful?

And while you’re over there, sign up for the Reproductive Justice and Gender weekly newletter.

32 comments for “Introducing…

  1. January 9, 2008 at 10:54 am

    An issue that really pisses me off (and my Republican, sorta anti-abortion mom too) is that health insurance providers will cover Viagra but not birth control.

    I have excellent health insurance coverage from my job (at Temple University) but it does not cover the birth control pills that I take to keep my periods regular (ask me about bad experiences with Depo-provera–another good subject for you, actually). I don’t make enough as a grad assistant to pay for my own BC.

  2. rootlesscosmo
    January 9, 2008 at 11:40 am

    I’d like to see some up-to-date information on practical access to biirth control and abortion, a queston that I think sometimes gets sidelined in discussions about legal rights. Not that Roe isn’t important, but a formal right isn’t the same as a real, available option. A few years ago the standard statistic was that abortion services weren’t available in 85% (or 83% or some similar number) of US counties; what’s the picture now? How has the gradual takeover of private hospitals by Catholic institutions (cf. the trans surgery denial post a few days ago) affected abortion access?

  3. Sean
    January 9, 2008 at 11:51 am

    I know this is going to displease many of this site’s readers, but I am so tired of the Viagra vs. Birth Control comparrison. They are not the same thing. Viagra RESTORES healthy natural body function in that it allows men to acheive and maintain erections when sexually aroused. Birth control pills INHIBIT natural body function in that it prevents a non-pregnant, non-lactating woman from ovulating. Not only that, but they increase the risk of heart attack and storke (the very types of things insurance companies are not excited about paying for). The more analagous comparison would be birth control and condoms. Both are tools that allow people to choose the timing and manner of conception. Last I checked, insurance companies do not cover the cost of condoms.
    If you think insurance companies should cover hormonal birth control, that’s fine. I agree with you 132%. Send me your legislator’s phone number and/or address and I’ll be happy to shoot off a letter or a phone call encouraging your legislator to require insurance companies to do this (even though it goes against my general inclination of supporting the free market). However, please stop acting like you are somehow getting screwed or being treated unfairly because one drug that is only used by men is covered and one that is only used by women is not when their uses and purposes are different.

  4. January 9, 2008 at 11:59 am

    Actually, Sean, Viagra doesn’t restore a healthy natural body function — many of the healthy older men who use Viagra cannot naturally get it up and keep it up. There isn’t anything wrong with it; that’s just nature. Viagra fucks with that. Birth control also fucks with nature, but I think drawing a line between inhibiting ovulation and promoting an erection is a false one. Can’t we say that Viagra inhibits the natural workings of older mens’ bodies? Oh, and Viagra is far more dangerous than birth control — I’d encourage you to google some info on that. So this isn’t about insurance companies not wanting to cover potential side effects.

    And actually, I think a more analogous comparison would be birth control and birth control. But Big Pharma isn’t interested in funding a whole lot of research for male birth control. Wonder why that could be?

  5. tinfoil hattie
    January 9, 2008 at 12:19 pm

    I’d like it not to have to be called a “special coverage” section.

    Oh, and Sean? F*** that s***. Viagra is about enabling men to continue enjoying a healthy sexual experience when their bodies have decided they can’t any longer.

    Birth control is about enabling women to enjoy a healthy sexual experience when their bodies are in prime condition to do so.

  6. Sally
    January 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    Is there also a just straight-out gender equality section at Alternet? Because if not, I’m actually not sure how I feel about “reproductive justice” being so clearly the focus of the feminist page. It seems to me to really marginalize women, including older women and many lesbians, for whom reproductive issues aren’t necessarily on the front burner. (Obviously, many lesbians do have reproductive justice issues, but they’re not generally the standard ones, like access to abortion and birth control.) I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be a reproductive justice page, but I’m not sure that I like conflating it with “gender” or “gender equality,” as if reproductive issues are the main, important gender equality issues and all the other stuff is just an afterthought. Does that make any sense? I don’t mean to be contrarian here.

  7. January 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Congrats on the gig, Jill!

    I know it may be a shooting-fish-in-a-barrel sort of thing, but I’d love to see an ongoing series of posts of male legislators who continuously oppose reproductive rights.

    Also, perhaps a meta-discussion on why there is one section with reproductive rights and gender justice stuff–I know they are inextricably intertwined, but there are so many other gender justice-related topics that it seems odd to pair these up.

  8. January 9, 2008 at 12:48 pm

    Oh, and in response to some claims here in the comments: Claims about what is ‘natural’ are almost always problematic, and are often presented as not-problematic. Antibiotics are unnatural in the sense that they do something the body can’t (or doesn’t) do on its own, but I doubt Sean would be lining up to support a ban on health care money going toward antibiotics.

  9. Sally
    January 9, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Heh. Jeffliveshere said that so much more nicely than I did!

    And I forgot to say congrats!

  10. January 9, 2008 at 1:35 pm

    Great idea. I hope you also cover green sex (interesting topic which I just wrote about but could stand to learn a lot more: http://almostvegetarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/green-sex.html).

    Cheers!

  11. fiets
    January 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm

    I just really want some information about long-term birth control use. I have been searching high and low all week, since I hear second-hand that you really shouldn’t use hormonal birth control for more than 5 years. WTF? No one ever told me this. I intend to have a long, happy sex life, and don’t particularly need a bunch of babies. How do I do it if I can’t have my NuvaRing?

  12. Sean
    January 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Jill,
    I am sure I am misunderstanding you. It seems to me that you are suggesting that Viagra is not a medical treatment for a medical problem becuase OTHERWISE “healthy older men who use Viagra cannot naturally get it up and keep it up. There isn’t anything wrong with that; that’s just nature.” It seems to me that would mean that either your argument is:
    A: That sexual health is not a part of a person’s overall health. I have been reading this site long enough to suspect you don’t believe that to be true. I don’t presume to speak for all people–or even all men–but I can tell you that the ability to have sex is a very important part of my physical and emotional health. The penis is just as much a part of a male’s body as his leg or his eyes. An inability to use any of those organs IS medical problem.
    or
    B: That just because certain bodily functions deteriorate over time, THAT is the true state of healthy natural body function. Using that argument, insulin is not a medical treatment for a medical problem because if a child develops diabetes, that child’s inability to produce insulin is that child’s natural body function. Thus, insulin is not RESTORING natural body function but altering it. Likewise, many people grow incontinent as they grow older. Consequently, incontinence (like impotence) is that person’s natural body function and medication that makes people continent again is also not a medical treatment for a medical problem. With all due respect, that argument is ludicrous.

    For birth control to work with this analogy, one must view ovulation as a medical problem. Only then would stopping ovulation be a medical treatment for a medical problem. I don’t think you are going to get much support for this argument but if you want to have the discussion on whether or not ovulation is a medical problem, I would be happy to open my mind to that possibility.

    As far as the health effects/detriments of Viagra vs. birth control, I knew that was a weak argument when I made it. It is also, in retrospect, irrelevant to my point. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

    Hormonal birth control vs. hormonal birth control is a much better analogy. And the pharmaceutical companies ARE working on it. And I, for one, am very excited and would LOVE to have hormonal birth control options for me in the near future. Consequently, this is something I follow relatively closely. Progress is slow on this for both medical and economic reasons.
    1. It is hard to figure out how to do this relatively few side effects. Men generally never naturally stop producing sperm. Thus, unlike female hormonal birth control, there is no way to “trick” the body into a state of non-reproduction.
    2. The demand is questionable. Presumably, only one-half of a relationship needs to be on birth control. Right now, women are already using hormonal birth control so, the thinking of people funding the research goes, there won’t be a ton of demand for male birth control because women are already using it. Consequently, problem 1 becomes an even larger issue because the resulting product will need to be nearly perfect to entice men to use it. SHOULD demand be debatable? Should the responsibility be presumed to fall on the woman? No. Of course not. But when it is your millions of dollars going into research, you are not looking at how society SHOULD be but you are looking to maximize return on your investment.

    Tinfoil,

    Yes, Viagra is about restoring function so that men can continue to have a healthy sexual experience. There is nothing wrong with that. While not yet approved specifically approved for that purpose, doctors have prescribed Viagra for women as an off-label use to help them experience arousal and enjoy sex. Presumably, insurance would cover those prescriptions. Thus, it is not just about sex for men.

    Yes, hormonal birth control helps women enjoy sex when they are in their prime. But it still does not treat a medical problem (as discussed above). It is not the job of insures to help us enjoy sex in our prime. If it was, they would need to cover condoms, IUS, spermicidal creams, sponges, etc.

  13. Wallace
    January 9, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    Sarah J, I live in Philly too, and I get my birth control from the Drexel women’s health center. If you need somewhere to get subsidized BC you might want to look into it; it’s across Vine from Hahnemann hospital. They charge you based on income and all you need is a normal gyn exam every year, which you can do with your regular doctor and fax it to them.

    Jill, congratulations.

  14. Sean
    January 9, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    IUDs–not IUS. Sorry.

  15. Astraea
    January 9, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    I also think a close look at the ways that access to reproductive health care have been limited would be worthwhile. I think if someone were able to compile the many ways that conservatives have been able to prevent women from having easy, no questions asked access to appropriate reproductive health care (Catholic hospitals, refusal to fill prescriptions, refusal to provide emergency contraception, legal actions, threats, picketing, lack of govt/insurance coverage for abortion, etc etc), the big picture would be even more frightening. Probably more than a blog post can cover comprehensively, though.

  16. January 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm

    I’d like it not to have to be called a “special coverage” section.

    Well, to be clear, there are several “special coverage” sections — it basically means that it’s an issue that the Alternet editorial staff thinks is important, and that they want to give greater emphasis too. Other sections include War on Iraq, the Environment, Health & Wellness, Rights & Liberties, etc etc.

    Further, the stories that go in the Repro Justice & Gender section are usually highlighted on the front page, too. It’s just an easy way to get more repro rights coverage, and to consolidate it in one easy place for readers.

    In other words, it’s not being ghettoized.

  17. meggygurl
    January 9, 2008 at 3:53 pm

    Yes, hormonal birth control helps women enjoy sex when they are in their prime. But it still does not treat a medical problem (as discussed above).

    Actually… you could argue that hormonal birth control is preventative of a medical problem (aka an unwanted pregnancy). Just like taking an aspirin a day can help prevent a heart attack, a birth control pill a day can prevent a pregnancy. And the cost of a pill a day verses 18+ years of a child… you think the insurance companies would be falling over themselves to provide this.

  18. January 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Sally, you aren’t being contrarian at all, and I hear what you’re saying. There isn’t a separate “gender” section; part of that is because the special coverage sections tend to focus on relatively narrow political issues (the environment, the war, immigration, drugs, etc), as opposed to broader identity-based issues. I’m not entirely sure about the inner editorial workings before I was hired, but as I understand it, Alternet received funding specifically for a reproductive rights section. The editorial staff expanded it to include gender, and I pushed to call it “reproductive justice,” specifically so that I could bring in broader issues of health care, race, etc. The editors also made it clear that they want a lot of coverage of traditionally marginalized groups — women of color, LGBT women, etc. They also want more coverage of masculinity, so that “gender” doesn’t always just refer to “women.”

    I know that isn’t ideal, but that’s the situation. I’m only editing this one section, but I will make an effort to cover a wide range of gender issues.

  19. Gordon
    January 9, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    Jill,

    First, let me add my congratulations. I do have a request.

    Something I would really like to see in a Reproductive Justice section is some good news. Some blogs have some of this, occasionally, but how about a recurring list of reproductive justice cases that turned out well? A court, executive, or legislature ordering pharmacies within its jurisdiction to dispense EC and do it wothout harassing the customers, a defeat somewhere for abstinence-only sex education (as we recently had here in Virginia), or the arrest and sentencing of abortion-clinic bombers would be examples.

    Maybe I’m just fooling myself, and there isn’t much good news to report, but it is too easy to get discouraged when developments on all fronts seem to be bad news for gender issues in general and reproductive justice in particular.

    WRT masculinity, I am a middle-aged, straight, white male, married to the same woman for nearly 40 years…thoroughly conventional. So why should I care about reproductive justice for women? I am also a great believer in Martin Niemoeller’s cautionary poem to the effect that he did not protest when the Nazis came for the communists, social democrats, trade unionists, and Jews because he was none of those things. Then, when the Nazis came for him, there was no one left to protest. We must stop the Christofascist juggernaut here and now, or it will engulf us all.

  20. nonskanse
    January 9, 2008 at 7:50 pm

    I would like to see at least a link to a site that tells us about “bad” pharmacies and “good” pharmacies – even if its only anecdotal, if a woman or girl is denied coverage at a pharmacy, others should know and can make decisions based on what they have heard. Like a big network of friends. I know its not a legal issue, but wouldn’t it be cool to boycott pharmacies that suck?
    Also, bad AND good experiences with various types of birth control. Honestly all I hear about this or that bc is “bad bad bad for me” even though I’ve had a great time with a couple types.
    I would like to hear good news like Gordon too. I mean, not just good news, but maybe for the many many articles you’re going to have about bad things, once in a while a ray of hope…?

  21. Leah
    January 9, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    “hormonal birth control helps women enjoy sex when they are in their prime. But it still does not treat a medical problem ”

    Hormonal birth control treats MANY medical problems. I started on it when I was a teen for periods so heavy I was becoming anemic. My mother-in-law used them to treat ovarian cysts. I have/had many friends use it for acne. They are also used to treat chronic pelvic pain, endometriosis, ovarian and endometrial cancer, menopause symptom releif, etc.

  22. Laurie
    January 9, 2008 at 8:14 pm

    Sean:
    Actually, hormonal birth control is *often* prescribed to deal with “medical problems”. There are any number of “medical problems” that can be alleviated with the application of hormonal birth control, including extremely painful menstruation, extremely long/heavy menstruation (major contributor to anemia/generally poor health), and as a prophylactic for ovarian cancer in women with familial histories thereof. I believe it may have some efficacy for some forms of endometriosis and poly-cystic ovary syndrome, too (doctors/patients of said diseases please feel free to correct me if I am wrong). That is in addition to preventing pregnancy, which in some women definitely qualifies as a medical “problem”. In ANY case it qualifies as a medical “condition”, and it is MUCH cheaper for an insurance company to prevent pregnancy than it is to pay for it (and the resultant infant/child).

    Viagra has been documented to cause blindness in some cases. It can contribute to “severe hypotension, myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmias, stroke and increased intraocular pressure”. I worked with an ophthalmologist who reported on the risk for nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy. (That’s a nice way of saying “optic nerve damage not caused by blocked blood vessels”.) It has a LOT more risk factors than most hormonal birth control does.

    I do not in any way dismiss the importance of sexual health, even in older humans. In fact, I applaud that research has even been done in that area given the general “ew!” reaction many people have to the notion of older humans being sexual. But I find it very odd that insurance companies will cover that particular drug, with its attendant side effects, and not hormonal birth control, which prevents a medical condition that can, in some women, be truly debilitating, and is FAR more expensive than just providing the HBC in the first place.

  23. January 9, 2008 at 9:16 pm

    Adoption ethics should be covered under reproductive justice, but it frequently gets ignored.

    Issues:
    Open birth records for adoptees
    Reform to prevent coercion tactics used against birthmothers in private infant adoption
    Legal protection for open adoption
    Racial and class disparities in domestic and international adoption
    Reform to encourage more adoption of older, special needs children in foster care

    Some websites for further exploration:
    paragraphein.wordpress.com
    ethica.ning.com
    pflagfostermom.blogspot.com
    harlowmonkey.typepad.com

  24. Linnaeus
    January 9, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    I do not in any way dismiss the importance of sexual health, even in older humans. In fact, I applaud that research has even been done in that area given the general “ew!” reaction many people have to the notion of older humans being sexual. But I find it very odd that insurance companies will cover that particular drug, with its attendant side effects, and not hormonal birth control, which prevents a medical condition that can, in some women, be truly debilitating, and is FAR more expensive than just providing the HBC in the first place.

    I think this – actually all of Laurie’s comment – is dead on. There’s plenty wrong with the situation in which Viagra gets covered and hormonal birth control doesn’t. And yes, Viagra’s safety is seriously in question. I have to say that I’m uncomfortable with the implication, intended or not, that when nature “decides” that a person’s sexual function will be greatly inhibited, that person should just accept that. There does seem to be a persistent notion that the older people get, the more “gross” sex is.

    Unless I am misinterpreting something.

  25. Rebecca
    January 9, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    From a childfree perspective, how about the fact that unless the woman is 30+ and/or has had kids, it is very difficult to get a doctor to perform various sterilization prcedures. It’s quite insulting to be patted on the hand, told we will ‘change our minds’ about kids, or will one day ‘meet a man who will want kids’ and ‘regret’ our decision to be sterilized. Maybe a small number of women will, but that’s no reason to penalize the rest of us. (From the stories I have heard through the grapevine, men face similar issues about getting snipped.)

    I am carrying around female parts that don’t work (hello early menopause) but because of my age (29) am finding a hard time finding a doctor willing to remove said girly parts, despite the fact that they are starting to cause me some discomfort. If in-vitro fertlization is not messing with ‘god’s plan’ I don’t see how choosing to become sterile is any different. *sorry, a little ranty.*

  26. Acer
    January 9, 2008 at 10:44 pm

    I’d like to read about the flipside of reproductive justice from what most people are talking about here– the right to have children when you want them and in the way you want them. I know that there are a lot of justice issues out there– issues facing pregnant prisoners and members of the armed forces, judges that order certain women not to reproduce, the disenfranchisement of women in hospitals, and that kind of thing– that often don’t get discussed in the context of “reproductive rights”, and I’d like to see them as part of the conversation.

  27. January 10, 2008 at 3:58 am

    Here’s a subject to be tackled:
    I was just flipping through TriCare’s (US military health insurance) website.
    Abortion is not covered at all unless a woman or girl faces a life-threatening condition.
    Even a severe threat to her health is not enough to be covered by health insurance.
    On all of their plans.
    A penis pump is. With no stipulation that it must be used for health reasons.

  28. January 10, 2008 at 10:56 am

    In my understanding, the term “Reproductive Justice” is one that was coined to take the focus off of white middle class womens’ reproductive health issues (birth control and contraception) and to expand the focus to those issues that effect more people’s ability to control their health. To me, this includes:

    forced and coerced sterilization
    dangerous contraceptives and experiments on such in communities of color
    the right to reproduce regardless of socioeconomic background
    the “war on drugs” and its effects on women of color
    the sex trade, and the rights of people who trade sex for money
    reproductive health issues of people in the trans community (effects of hormones, pregnancy, etc)
    environmental racism and its impacts on reproductive health
    health care access (not just to abortion) and its effects on reproductive health
    access to prenatal care
    access to reproductive health care for incarcerated people
    access to health care and self determination re: reproductive health for people with disabilities
    the impact of military occupation on reproductive health
    pesticides effects on farm workers

    I could go on and on. I’m missing a lot here. The point is, if Reproductive Justice is going to be used, please don’t erase the communities that made the distinction in terminology as an explicit way to center the issues most important to us. Thanks.

  29. JackieO
    January 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm

    Here is a topic of interest that is personally affecting me:

    I believe I am about to be served with divorce papers. We have been married 15 years. Up until seven years ago I enjoyed a developing career as a lawyer in another state. Approximately seven years ago my spouse was made a very attractive offer by a dot com in the area we now live. It was hard to refuse, notwithstanding my developing career. Before the offer was made, my spouse and I earned approximately the same with my spouse earning slightly more. We took the offer and moved with our 2 children ages 5 and 4 at the time to a place I had never been to before. I waived into this state’s bar and almost a year after moving here the dot com my spouse worked for imploded. We considered moving back but I had secured employment as a lawyer, but earning 25% less than what I had earned in our prior state of residence. My spouse, being well educated secured new employment here rather quickly, but no where near the salary or benefits that lured us here in the first place. We had a third child and I found myself bearing the majority of the child care responsibilities. My earnings have remained essentially stagnant and my spouse’s have risen substantially. Notwithstanding my repeated desire to return to our former state of residence where I feel my capacity to earn is greater, my spouse has refused to do it. My spouse now earns 4 times what I earn. The principle reason for the divorce? My spouse resents the fact that my career has stalled and my earning capacity has declined as I have aged. By my rough calculations my spouse will owe me approximately $2,500.00 a month in child and spousal support, but my that may require resort to the kids’ college funds, at least according to my spouse. If the divorce goes through I am considering a return to the state of our former residence where I feel I could do better financially, but that would mean not seeing my kids regularly, not something I could do. So what should I do? In my view, my gender in this fact pattern is irrelevant and therefore I have made painstaking efforts to write this in as gender neutral a fashion as possible.

  30. Serafina
    January 12, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Sean, you are conflating “medical” and “healthy” with “natural.” In your first comment, you suggested that birth control is interfering with a “natural” process in a way that Viagra is not. This makes no sense. The aging process is a natural part of life. An old man being unable to get it up is as “natural” as a young woman being fertile and ovulating.

    In your second comment, you refined your terms a little and switched to talking about “medical” and “healthy” instead of “natural.” You said that impotence was a medical problem because of the importance of sexual health to one’s emotional health. Fair enough. But you also said that ovulation was not a medical problem. Why on earth not, if impotence is? Ovulation is not a medical problem for EVERY woman–just like impotence is not a medical problem for EVERY man–but, if getting pregnant would be damaging to a particular woman’s mental and/or physical health, then ovulation is NO LESS a medical problem for her than impotence would be for you. Stopping ovulation is NO LESS important to her health than getting it up would be for you. Frankly, given the different consequences of pregnancy vs. ED, I’d say stopping ovulation is MORE IMPORTANT for her health than getting it up is for an elderly man’s health.

    What’s more, you seem to be suggesting that there’s something like a “true natural state” for the human body. There is no such thing. The human body changes states all the time, and there’s no reason for considering one state “truer” than another. Better, yes. Healthier, certainly. But not “truer.”

    I think your attachment to the term “natural” is the problem here. There’s really no point in trying to sort “natural” from “unnatural,” since everything is a part of nature anyway, including human ingenuity. We can only judge the consequences of medical treatments as “healthy” versus “unhealthy.” Once you accept that, it becomes obvious that stopping ovulation is (whether you want to call it “natural” or not) important to some women’s health–at least as much as Viagra is to some men’s health. The reason why feminists get up in arms about the coverage of Viagra but not birth control is that it shows a prioritization of men’s sexual health over women’s. Birth control allows women to have sex without fearing the often-horrible consequences of pregnancy. That’s a part of their sexual health.

  31. Serafina
    January 12, 2008 at 1:44 pm

    But it still does not treat a medical problem (as discussed above). It is not the job of insures to help us enjoy sex in our prime.

    WTF? Then why is it the job of insurers to help elderly men get their rocks off?

    You’re being EXTREMELY contradictory, Sean. At one point you say that sexual health is an important part of overall health, that not being able to have sex is a medical problem. Fair enough. But if that’s the case, then you have to take steps to protect WOMEN’S sexual health as well and give them the medications they need to maintain their sexual health. Which includes birth control.

    Furthermore, pregnancy itself can be an enormous medical problem with huge mental and physical effects. And YES, it is our insurance companies’ responsibility to help protect us from it, just as it would protect us from a broken leg or a heart attack.

  32. Serafina
    January 12, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    And (might as well post three comments in a row, even if one is in moderation) if ovulation is “natural,” Sean, then why isn’t a diabetic child “natural”? “Natural” (meaning, judging from your comments, the default state of things without human intervention) doesn’t always mean “good.” If you want to talk about “natural,” then insulin and Viagra shouldn’t be covered, any more than birth control should. If you want to talk about “good,” on the other hand, then you have no excuse for NOT covering birth control.

    And as I said in my previous comment, now held up in moderation, “natural” versus “unnatural” is a pointless dichotomy in any case. Human intervention is part of the default state of things.

Comments are closed.