So anyway, they have proposed a new law there that would require women to prove to their employers that they are getting birth control pills prescribed for non-sexual reasons. Yes, that's correct; women would have to prove that they are not getting the pill to have sex.
Of course this is not about sex. Don't you just love when republicans say that: "It's not about sex for goodness sakes, it's about religious freedom!" And, of course, that is always followed by something like this: "I don't care how much sex you have. Go out and have sex with a million different guys for all I care. It's not about you and your sex!" I actually heard a talk show host say that. (Mike Gallagher I think) It makes them angry to even think about these women having sex.
So what is really going on here? And why all the bills like Arizona HB 2625 being proposed by the all boys clubs in state houses across the country? Don't be fooled when they say it's about First Amendment rights, it is not. This is about small minded and insecure men exerting power and control over a part of the human anatomy that they know nothing about. It's about sexual hypocrites who cannot stand the thought of women doing out in the open what they like do behind closed doors.
If our hormonal makeup was such that it allowed us to carry babies for nine months there would be no debate. Birth control pills would be available on demand in the church lobby every Sunday morning. If men had cramps and bleeding every month there would be all kinds of drive through clinics that offer birth control pills and a section in every grocery store for the pill. "Excuse me sir, where do you keep your birth control pills?" "Aisle seven buddy, right next to the tissue."
Oh yeah, birth control pills are not only used for birth control. Here are some other uses: Reducing cramps or menstrual pain. Preventing migraines and painful headaches. Treatment acne. And treating endometrioses. [Source]
… “My whole legislation is about our First Amendment rights and freedom of religion,” Lesko said. “All my bill does is that an employer can opt out of the mandate if they have any religious objections.And because Arizona’s an at-will employment state, Jezebel.com points out, that means that bosses critical of their female employees’ sex lives could fire them as a result.
It’s all about freedom, (Lasko) said, echoing everyone who thinks there’s nothing ironic about claiming that a country that’s “free” allows people’s bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance. First amendment. The constitution. Rights of religious people to practice the treasured tenets of their faiths, the tenets that dictate that religious people get to tell everyone who is not of faith how they’re supposed to live, and the freedom to have that faith enforced by law."
Ironically, this bill in Arizona is being sponsored by a republican woman. But it makes the bill no less sexist and ignorant. Smart folks those republicans, I guess they learned their lessons from those congressional hearings when they trotted a bunch of men out there to talk about women's reproductive issues.
"Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting for those who belong to the Lord."
Or those who belong to the republican party.