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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.*

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.

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