Finally women will have important access to over the counter birth control pills

An echo report published in Lancaster Online by Matthew Perrone.

Maine Writer introduction: A little history from my nursing experience, recalling the first time I ever saw a woman who was taking birth control pills, at that time, the dose of estrogen in the prescription had not been adjusted to the safer level we have in today's pills.  

This particular lady of child bearing age, but I would say she was probably about 30 years old, was admitted to the hospital where I was a student nurse with leg thrombophletitis - now a known side effect of high dose estrogen contraceptive pills.  These pills are no longer prescribed.  But, the patient showed a group of us student nurses what the round package looked like and we were all eyes and ears to learn about this new medical breakthrough in reproductive health care.  Later, when I worked in a Baltimore City public clinic, I recall how it was difficult to educate indigent women about how swallowing a pill in your mouth could prevent pregnancy.  There was no evidence available to convince them about how this medical prescription could prevent pregnancy.  So, I am very glad to learn about the impending access to over the counter birth control pills, although I suspect there will be too many women will be skeptical about using it. I hope a public awareness campaign can help to support the safe use of the pills.

First over-the-counter birth control pill gets FDA approval

U.S. officials have approved the first over-the-counter birth control pill, a major change that will broaden access for women and teenagers

By MATTHEW PERRONE - AP Health Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators approved the nation's first over-the-counter birth control pill in a landmark decision that will soon allow American women and girls to obtain contraceptive medication as easily as they buy aspirin and eyedrops.

A common birth control dispenser with one month supply

The Food and Drug Administration cleared once-a-day Opill to be sold without a prescription, making it the first such medication to be moved out from behind the pharmacy counter. The manufacturer, Ireland-based Perrigo, won’t start shipping the pill until early next year, and there will be no age restrictions on sales.

Hormone-based pills have long been the most common form of birth control in the U.S., used by tens of millions of women since the 1960s. Until now, all of them required a prescription.

Medical societies and women’s health groups have pushed for wider access for decades, noting that an estimated 45% of the 6 million annual pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. 

Teens and girls, women of color and those with low incomes report greater hurdles in getting prescriptions and picking them up.

The challenges can include paying for a doctor's visit, getting time off from work and finding child care.

“This is really a transformation in access to contraceptive care,” said Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, a nonprofit group that supported the approval. “Hopefully this will help people overcome those barriers that exist now.”

Perrigo says Opill could be an important new option for the estimated 15 million U.S. women who currently use no birth control or less effective methods, such as condoms. They are a fifth of women who are child-bearing age.

But how many women will actually gain access depends on the medication's price, which Perrigo plans to announce later this year.

“The reason why so many of us worked tirelessly for years to get over-the-counter birth control pills is to improve access ... cost shouldn’t be one of those barriers,” said Dr. Pratima Gupta of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Most older birth control pills cost $15 to $30 for a month's supply without insurance coverage.

Over-the-counter medicines are generally much cheaper than prescriptions, but they typically aren’t covered by insurance.

Forcing insurers to cover over-the-counter birth control would require a regulatory change by the federal government, which women's advocates are urging the Biden administration to implement.

The FDA approval gives U.S. women another birth control option amid the legal and political battles over reproductive health, including last year's reversal of Roe v. Wade, which has upended abortion access across the U.S.

That said, Opill's approval is unrelated to the ongoing court battles over the abortion pill mifepristone. And anti-abortion groups have generally emphasized that they do not oppose contraceptives, which are used to prevent pregnancies, not end them.

However, that has done little to ease fears that contraception could someday become a target. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion in which he explicitly called on his colleagues to put the high court's same-sex marriage, gay sex and contraception cases on the table❗😟

In the last year, the FDA has faced pressure from Democratic politicians, health advocates and medical professionals to improve access to birth control. The American Medical Association and other leading medical groups backed Opill’s application for over-the-counter status.

Birth control pills are available without a prescription across much of South America, Asia and Africa.

Perrigo submitted years of research to the FDA to show that women could understand and follow instructions for using the pill. Thursday’s approval came despite some concerns by FDA scientists about the company’s results, including whether women with certain underlying medical conditions would understand that they shouldn’t take the drug.

The FDA’s action only applies to Opill. It’s in an older class of contraceptives, sometimes called mini-pills, that contain a single synthetic hormone and generally carry fewer side effects than more popular combination hormone pills.

Women’s health advocates hope the decision paves the way for more over-the-counter birth control options and, eventually, for abortion pills to do the same.

An outside panel of FDA advisers unanimously voted in favor of the switch at a hearing in May where dozens of public speakers called for Opill’s approval.

Dyvia Huitron was among those who presented, explaining how she has been unable to get prescription birth control more than three years after becoming sexually active. The 19-year-old University of Alabama student said she still isn’t comfortable getting a prescription because the school’s health system reports medical exams and medications to parents.

“My parents did not let me go on the pill,” Huitron said in a recent interview. “There was just a lot of cultural stigma around being sexually active before you’re married.”

While she uses other forms of contraception, “I would have much preferred to have birth control and use these additional methods to ensure that I was being as safe as possible.”

Advocates were particularly interested in Opill because it raised fewer safety concerns. The pill was first approved in the U.S. five decades ago.

“It’s been around a long time, and we have a large amount of data supporting that this pill is safe and effective for over-the-counter use,” Blanchard said.

Newer birth control pills typically combine two hormones, estrogen and progestin, which can help make periods lighter and more regular. But their use carries a heightened risk of blood clots, and they shouldn’t be used by women at risk for heart problems, such as those who smoke and are over 35.

Opill has only progestin, which prevents pregnancy by blocking sperm from reaching the cervix. It must be taken around the same time daily to be most effective.

In its internal review published in May, the FDA noted that some women in Perrigo’s study had trouble understanding the drug’s labeling information. In particular, the instructions warn that women with a history of breast cancer should not take the pill because it could spur tumor growth.

Common side effects include irregular vaginal bleeding, headaches, dizziness and cramps, according to the FDA. The label also cautions that certain drugs can interfere with Opill’s effectiveness, including medications for seizures, HIV and hypertension.

Perrigo executives said the company will spend the rest of the year manufacturing the pill so it can be available in stores early next year.

Follow Matthew Perrone on Twitter: @AP_FDAwriter

Choice: Abortion and the impact on women's health

Two echo opinion letters published in The New York Times:

Diana Greene Foster
Oakland, Calif.
The writer is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Contraception use prevents unwanted pregnancies!

People who carried unwanted pregnancies to term suffered worse physical health for years to come; in fact, two died from childbirth. Women denied abortions were more likely to live in poverty, along with their children, and to have a hard time covering even basic expenses like food and housing, compared with those able to get their abortions. Not being able to access abortion services curtailed people’s other life goals such as getting a higher education, finding a high-quality romantic relationship and even having intended children later under better circumstances.

Mr. Douthat diminishes the substantial harm done to women’s lives and to the well-being of their existing and future children on the basis of the finding that women are emotionally resilient. The callous argument seems to be that it is OK for the government to force someone to sacrifice their body, their family’s security and their life goals so long as it doesn’t also break their spirit.

And this....

Essentially, the only abortion debate we should be having is whether or not women get to have autonomy over their own bodies, or whether they must be forced to concede control to complete strangers and/or the government.

Nobody I know is pro-abortion. The vital question is about choice.

Nobody should get to choose what a woman does with her body, other than that woman — ideally (but not necessarily) with the support and input from her doctors and intimate people in her life. The idea that a woman should be told what she can and cannot do — by strangers and/or the government — is misogynistic and demeaning.  From Nancy S. Cohen, New York

P.S. Maine Writer:  "The best available evidence suggests that improvements in contraceptive use are responsible for a decline in abortion rates," Rachel K. Jones, PhD, principal research scientist at Guttmacher Institute, tells BuzzFeed Health.

Audacity of U.S. Supreme Court male justices to rule on a woman's issue

Let's put the Hobby Lobby corporation out of business and vote all Republicans who support conservative Supreme Court justices out of office!

Maybe it's time to put only women Supreme Court justices on the nation's highest court. Today's court ruling, to support right wing corporations that don't want to pay for women's birth control in Obamacare health insurance coverage, is a sexist decision. 

None of the women justices voted to support the majority rule about corporations that don't want to provide contraceptive coverage for their female employees. 

Male justices supported the 5-4 decision to support corporations, rather than women's right to contraceptive healthcare. Anybody who believes Republicans, when they deny their "war on women", must also believe in flying saucers. In fact, flying saucers are more credible than believing Republicans care, at all, about women and their health care.

Obviously, it's time to completely remove all Republicans from office because they are the party of extremism that appoints conservative Supreme Court justices to the high court. It's impossible to understand how male Supreme Court justices can possibly rule on an issue as sacred to women as our reproductive health and the right to use birth control.

Shame on the US Supreme Court for supporting a ruling on women's health  without one woman justice voting for the wrongly decided majority rule. Moreover, every male justice on the US Supreme Court has a mother....obviously, they each have a mother, and their mothers....to a person, practiced birth control. Did you read this, Justice Alito....Roberts.....all the rest of you men??? Your mothers used contraception, natural or abstinence or artificial. They all used contraception and birth control.

Male justices, today, ruled to support a decision about contraception, in opposition to what your own mothers practiced in the privacy of their bedrooms.

As for me....forget about shopping at "Hobby Lobby", and the right wing corporations that supported the issue the court ruled on about paying for contraception. Let's insure that they go out of business. Meanwhile, it's urgent to vote all Republicans out of office, so Americans can have confident in a government that supports people over corporations, women's' health care over the religious preferences of their employees and the right of innocent people to be protected from gun violence. 

When was the last time the US Supreme Court ruled in support of the people?

E.J. Dionne writes about how the US Supreme Court's rulings are undermining democracy in favor or oligarchy.

An oligarchy, Webster’s dictionary defines as “a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons.” It’s a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn’t know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic, writes Dionne.

To put it in Maine Writer language, when was the last time the US Supreme Court created a ruling in favor of the people? 

Okay, maybe we can point to the one recent ruling in support of Obamacare. Even this ruling included the caveat that ordinary people who can't afford the health insurance exchanges, provided for in the law, are at the mercy of right wing state governments that won't expand Medicaid coverage. In other words, the high court ruled in favor of allowing people who can pay for health insurance to be able to buy it, but stopped short of extending the ruling to help those who cannot afford the coverage.  

Now the court is asked to rule on whether or not corporations can be protected from paying for contraception for women employees. Do these same corporations pay for Viagra for their male employees?  

Dionne points out the impact of the combination of decisions, Citizens United several years ago, and now McCutcheon - allowing unlimited campaign donations. Dionnne says the five Republican appointees to SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) - the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito - always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.

America's Founding Fathers were aware of and opposed to the notion of unchecked hereditary wealth. But, they never anticipated the explosion of wealth in one generation on the scale seen it in the past several decades, where a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg or others of that ilk could accumulate so much proportional to the rest of us that they could basically buy and sell entire state legislatures and administrations.

Campaign finance laws supported by the SCOTUS is changing the rules of democracy so the wealthy few have the opportunity to own a slice of America.

In so doing, the wealthy are undermining the value of the individual voters.  

Honestly, I simply can't recall any recent ruling by the SCOTUS where the average person is supported.  

Thereby, pointing to yet another excellent reason for all Republicans to be voted out of office- so the next round of Supreme Court Justices (whenever that is) will be of the people and for the people. 

Although  Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, they are mortal. As a result, their eternal salvation will be their ultimate jurisprudence. Meanwhile, the right wing Republicans on the court continue to issue rulings inconsistent with the best interest of our American democracy and undermine the value of voting rights by supporting oligarchy.

Republican Hypocrisy List

Here's my list of the five most hypocritical positions Republicans promote in their campaigns to mislead American voters about public policy and Obamacare (aka Affordable Care Act):

1.  Immigration Reform -  Every person who lives in the United States, who is not an indigenous population, like Native American, Eskimos or Hawaiians, are otherwise the descendants of immigrants. Therefore, none of us has the right to deny US citizenship to any qualified immigrant, when our ancestors worked hard to gain this status on our behalf. It's hypocritical to deny today's immigrants the status we share with our ancestors.

2.  Income Inequality- There's no proof that paying people a higher minimum wage hurts the economy. Republicans use scare tactics when they promote this false premise. America's economy has grown with every minimum wage increase authorized for US workers. Republicans are hypocritical when they oppose increasing the minimum wage, because the only reason they support this stubborn position is because they're focused on greed, rather than on the welfare of hard working people.

3.  Contraception - fifty years ago, right wing radicals and Protestant Evangelicals didn't say "boo" about contraception. Now, for some reason, these religious zealots are bedroom police. I predict these right wing religious groups will loose women in their flocks if they continue preaching against the use of certain kinds of contraception. The hypocrisy of this anti-contraception campaign is knowing, with 99 percent accuracy, that every person who  supports the campaigns had a mother who somehow practiced birth control, in one way or another. Therefore, it's hypocrisy for Republicans to support anti-contraception campaigns when their public policy initiatives advocate for cutting the funds to programs that help women and children who need income assistance.

4.  Revenue Sharing- Republicans are toxic on taxes, yet when it comes to sharing the wealth with their corporate friends, loopholes and competitive contracts abound. It's hypocritical for Republicans to obstruct tax initiatives for the purpose of revenue sharing for the public good, while, at the same time, supporting programs whereby defense and private contractors obtain incentives with government tax money to create corporate profits.

5.  Obamacare health care reform -  Republicans use Obamacare as a red herring, holding up President Obama's health care reform initiative as though it's a smelly fish. This hypocritical betrayal of the health care reform law is seditious behavior. In fact, Republicans have absolutely no alternative plan to provide health insurance for millions of people, who need coverage and are willing to pay for the insurance. A small percentage of people say they will pay more for coverage because of the cost of implementing Obamacare, but the truth be told, their premiums would've gone up regardless of any health care reform initiatives. It's hypocritical for Republicans to oppose the implementation of Obamacare, when they have no public policy to present to the American people as an alternative.  

In fact, the most hypocritical Republican position is their support for Christian values, while turning a blind eye to their moral obligation to recognize and support social justice, including income equality and revenue sharing.    

Democrats must raise awareness among voters about what's at risk if Republicans are allowed to control government. 

Let's remove Republicans form political office who are overtly hypocritical.  That means all of them.

President Obama meets Pope Francis - two like minded progressives

As a Roman Catholic, I applaud President Barack Obama's overt outreach to our two living Pontiffs.

President Obama traveled to Rome with his family to meet Pope Benedict XVI, who has since resigned the office.

This week, President Obama reached out to meet with our current Pope Francis in the Vatican.

Meanwhile, our American bishops and cardinals continue to criticize President Obama about his position on issues that have no relevance to these unmarried men of the church.  They're putting an unnecessary negative spin on President Obama's Papal visit by criticizing the Affordable Care Act's inclusion of contraception coverage in the plans sold through health insurance exchanges.

Our American bishops should be applauding President Obama's outreach to the poor and his belief in trying to end income inequality. Instead, the church hierarchy has ignored those empty pews in their churches for the sake of continuing to harass women about contraception. Moreover, the bishops and cardinals are very intelligent men, surely they know how this war against the access and use of contraception has moved beyond them.  Catholic women use contraception and that's all there is to it. I'm frankly embarrassed when Timothy Cardinal Dolan talks to the Today Show Matt Lauer to say how important it is to protect religious liberty, which is now a euphemism for "prevent women from having access to contraception".

Dear Cardinal Dolan, your own mother likely used contraception in one way or another.

Apparently, Pope Francis and President Obama spoke for about an hour, much longer than anticipated. I simply can't believe the Pope wasted his precious time talking about contraception. Moreover, I don't believe President Obama would've spent an hour of his tightly budgeted time talking to the Pope about an issue like contraception, where he and the Pope were  bound to disagree. 

These two high profile world leaders, the Pope being a moral leader while President Obama being a world leader, are not about to waste one another's time. They talked for an hour because they agree on social issues impacting millions of the people of the world. 

I sincerely hope they spoke about the tragedy of the millions of refugees in Syria.

Thank you President Obama for meeting with Pope Francis.
Likewise, thank you Pope Francis for meeting with President Obama.

As for Timothy Cardinal Dolan, he should humble himself to meet with President Obama to discuss how to solve pressing social issues, rather than pretend he's a US pontiff who only cares about preventing women from having access to contraception. 

US Supreme Court has a chance to prove there's a right wing war on women - or not

It's surreal to be blogging about how the US Supreme Court is asked to rule on a woman's right to access reproductive health care. After eons of being at the whim of men's sexual freedom, women finally achieved reproductive choice, only to have right wing zealots challenge this hard won right.

This incredible assault on women's right to contraception came about because right wing conservative religious groups want to flex their political might. This is an expensive way to challenge government health care. It's disappointing to see the Supreme Court dragged into the decision, about whether or not corporations have religious liberty and thereby are exempt from paying for contraception. If the Supreme Court protects a corporation's right to religious freedom, this incredulous ruling will undoubtedly open a Pandora's box of other claims to undermine the rights of people who don't happen to agree with religious zealots.  As with the Citizens United ruling, whereby corporations now have free speech rights, the idea that these concrete organizations would also have religious freedom is even more ludicrous.  

Freedom's are gifted to human beings with souls - corporations have no souls and, therefore, should not be considered to have human properties. I suspect the US Supreme Court needs a very urgent course on the properties of the Homo sapiens human species. We members of this animal group, have souls. Corporations do not.

Religious liberty was never intended to trump individual rights. After all, even the Bible supports the gift of free will as a divine gift to all mankind. (Proverbs 16:9 - The heart of a man plans his way but the Lord establishes his steps.)

Nevertheless, if the US Supreme Court wants to validate the right wing's war on women, all they need do is support the claim of corporations to prevent health coverage for contraception. My hope is, the Supreme Court will rule against corporations and in favor of the individuals, in support of coverage for contraception. But, if this ruling goes right wing, perhaps it will wake women up, those who are ambiguous about their rights to reproductive health care, feeling it might always be there for them. A right wing ruling in favor of corporations will have the unintended benefit of putting every right wing Republican on notice that women will vote them all out of office! But, let's hope the US Supreme Court will protect humans over corporations and not create another Citizens United fiasco.

President Barack Obama Speaks Intelligently About Women - Huckabee Alert

Mike Huckabee receives a failing grade in recent public comments he made trying to explain women's access to healthcare and contraceptive coverage. For some idiotic reason, Huckabee characterized women who accept health coverage for contraception coverage as doing so because they want to control their libido. He made no mention about men and their own libido.

Michael Tomasky writes in the Daily Beast:  What galaxy do Republican men live in? Apparently one where ladies who use contraception are ‘helpless’.....

Pitiful Mike Huckabee needs woman speak lessons. Guess what? Probably, the very best teacher for this subject is President Barack Obama.

Read what President Obama said in a speech he gave last week when he addressed men about how to prevent sexual abuse of women. President Obama's comments were educational and respectful:

"'Sexual assault is an affront to our basic decency and humanity. And it's about all of us, the safety of those we love most: our moms, our wives, our daughters and our sons. Because, when a child starts to question their self-worth after being abused, and maybe starts withdrawing, or a young woman drops out of school after being attacked, or a mom struggles to hold down a job and support her kids after an assault, it's not just these individuals and their families who suffer. Our communities, our whole country is held back,' Obama said."

President Obama raises the value of women when he calls for basic decency and humanity.  

In contrast, Mike Huckabee degrades women when he makes leaping assumptions about why women use contraception or need access to health coverage to pay for birth control pills.

I recommend Huckabee study President Obama tapes before he opens his mouth again to speak about women.

An even better idea, however, Huckabee should stop talking altogether.  He's a terrible politician, a right wing extremist, a religious zealot and a terrible role model for men who need to understand how to respect women, rather than speak condescendingly about us.

Huckabee Alert! Pay attention to President Barack Obama when he speaks with sensitivity and intelligently about women.

Republican Men Speaking About Women

Every Republican woman in America should be demanding to see the talking points for male GOP politicians who insist on speaking about the female psyche.  For reasons beyond comprehension, Republican politicians seem obsessed with defining women, a subject they clearly don't understand. 

Whatever words were in the condescending talking points political wanna-be Mike Huckabee used in a recent speech, they should be destroyed. In fact, Republican women should put all the "women talking points" used by male GOP politicians into a paper shredder and burn the remnants.

Huckabee is among a line-up of politicians to grab the political spotlight by talking about women. This has been a stupid move for the men who attempt to gain political favor by using women as the misplaced focus of their attention getting scheme. 

In a ridiculously titled speech called "The War For Women", Huckabee said,  "Our (GOP) party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on them; it’s war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it. Let us take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be."  (Even typing this gives me a headache.)

Dear Governor Huckabee- you need to get a life! Stop talking about women. The above comment is astoundingly inaccurate and, frankly, laughable.  

In fact, Democrats are not the party offering to give women birth control pills. Rather, women are requesting them, all by themselves!

By the way, who is Uncle Sugar? Just askin', never heard of him.

Republican male politicians who are starving for media attention would do far-far better if they went out and into the people, emulating leaders like Pope Francis. 

Rather than talk about women, Huckabee should visit a shelter for abused women and speak to them. Rather than talk about women, Huckabee should spend the night with a single mother and help her to feed breakfast to her family. Rather than talk about women, Huckabee should try to live on food stamps for one week. 

If Huckabee and his male political counterparts really want to talk about women, they need to walk in our shoes, share our burdens and communicate from our point of view.

But the best advice I can give to all Republican men who are speaking about women is this - don't do it.

Meanwhile, those talking points used in the past must be burned.

Viagra or Contraception: Supreme Court to Interfere in Women's Right to Health Care

It makes no sense for the US Supreme Court to become involved in still another trumped up challenge to a legally implemented health care reform law, aka Obamacare. This time around, the court will hear another right wing driven challenge under the pretense of protecting the freedom of religious groups to prevent the coverage of women's contraception under the Affordable Care Act. 

But, will the court also intervene about a man's right to seek coverage under the Obamacare exchange plans, for Viagra, the treatment of male erectile dysfunction? Viagra is paid for by many health plans and prescription drug benefits. Contraception isn't.

There's a huge difference between Viagra and contraception coverage. One is a male sexual enhancer while the other protects women from risks associated with too many pregnancies.

Women seek reproductive health care, including contraception, because we choose to avoid the risks associated with bearing too many children. Bearing too many children can precipitate risk for gall bladder disease, urinary tract anomalies and diabetes. Moreover, too many pregnancies challenges a family's economic ability to support healthy children.

On the other hand, Viagra is a treatment for a very specific male issue correlated directly with his ability to be sexually active. There's no health protection gained from a typical Viagra prescription. Often, Viagra is helpful for men who have erectile dysfunction related to diabetes or neuromuscular diseases, but the intention of the drug therapy is always to increase a man's virility. Viagra does nothing to protect a man's systemic health. In fact, I'd argue that Viagra puts men at risk for contracting veneral diseases.

I simply don't understand religious groups obsession over women's reproduction while men are free to seek aphrodisiacs from snake oil salesmen or have prescription drug coverage for Viagra. In fact, if men were only virile once a month, women would likely need less contraception.  

Now the US Supreme Court has decided to create even more controversy about women's health by hearing the case for contraception coverage in the Health Care Reform law.  

My question to the Justices is this: How many Supreme Court Justices know how their mother's practiced contraception?  No doubt, every Justice has a mother and these women either abstained from sex or created some other methodology for preventing too many pregnancies.

Would the Supreme Court Justices recommend that women return to the methods used by their own mothers to space their pregnancies?

It's ridiculous for the Supreme Court of the United States to continue fueling the right wing obsession with women's reproductive health under the auspices of religious practices.  

At the end of the day, trust me, every woman finds a way to practice contraception. Neither the Supreme Court or anybody else should have any influence whatsoever about how a woman chooses to prevent multiple pregnancies.  

As for who pays for contraception? Well, if men received contraception therapy instead of Viagra coverage under their insurance plans, women likely wouldn't need contraception coverage at all. 

Therefore, the Supreme Court's tax payer paid for interference in a woman's right to health care isn't fair because, "What's good for the goose must also be good for the gander."

Women Voter Alert - War on Women is Real

My question is "why"?  Two women on social media tell me they're voting for Romney-Ryan, but they're unable to tell me "why?"  

These misguided women aren't voting in their own best interest.  Republicans have been clear about how their public policy will cut funding for Planned Parenthood, where middle and low income women currently have access to affordable health care including contraception.  These groupie Romney women don't remember the time, before the Planned Parenthood, when women had no access to contraception. In fact, Planned Parenthood was created by a group of largely Republican women to prevent unwanted pregnancies among young women. 

Reducing unwanted pregnancies allows women to focus on improving their human condition through education and jobs. They can aspire to work and earn retirement benefits, including qualifying for Social Security and Medicare. 

One twitter woman told me she believed women didn't need primary care provided by Planned Parenthood, or other health care providers, because "99 percent of women's health and wellness can be solved with exercise" (this statement falls under the "I can't make this stuff up" category).  As I'm a nurse, this completely misguided, wrong minded, "exercise" statement is counter to physiology.  Sure, exercise will reduce obesity risk and can postpone early onset diabetes. But exercise won't prevent endometriosis or female cancers of the breast, cervix or ovaries, where early diagnosis are essential for recovery.

Another misinformed twitter women said she'll vote for Romney-Ryan because Planned Parenthood in Washington state fraudulently billed Medicaid $700,000 to pay for abortions.  As a nurse, I told this misinformed lady how Medicaid doesn't pay for any abortions, so the claim is totally false.  Although I have no inside information about Washington State Medicaid billing, I know, for certain, how Medicaid can't be billed for abortion services.  Nonetheless, this twitter lady from Washington State claims she's voting for Romney.  Why? Her response to my questions receive serial misinformed statements, but no answers.

Meanwhile, Congressman Todd Akin is running for Senate in Missouri as a pro-life candidate. He clearly said there's such a heinous violent act he called "legitimate rape".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/25/todd-akin-senate_n_2015666.html

"Since first uttering the regrettable comments about "legitimate rape," Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin has been his own most formidable foe – distracting attention from his big-government campaign theme against Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill by continuing to say quirky or questionable things."

Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock didn't get the memo Akin heard in stereo from women's groups about the physiology of pregnancy caused by rape.  Mourdock said something fanciful like pregnancy caused by rape is a ludicrous divine intention.  "..he refused to apologize Wednesday for saying that rape resulting in pregnancy is 'something God intended'."

http://www.koaa.com/news/gop-s-murdock-stands-by-rape-abortion-comment/

Although I've fought the 140 character or less arguments with several of these misguided women, the results are disheartening Unfortunately, bully behavior by the "exercise" lady caused me to block her and the Washington State lady tells me I'm talking down to her when I explain how abortion isn't covered by Medicaid. 

It's even more disheartening to realize how these and other women probably represent many more who are just like them.

As a nurse, I know these women are harbingers for the future of women's health care.  Romney-Ryan have somehow mesmerized some women into believing health care is about exercise and Medicaid billing.  In other words, if these opinions prevail, women's health care will be driven by presumption rather than physiology.

Of course, when President Obama is re-elected, women can anticipate support for health care based upon medical research and physiological science.  I'm posting this blog link on twitter, with a prayer for the enlightenment of women who are misguided into voting against their own best health care interest.

Contraception Coverage - One Roman Catholic Woman's Response

This blog is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

It's an accurate report of what I know to be true.

1.  In the Roman Catholic Church, family planning is supported, albeit with natural methodology.
2.  Although artificial contraception is an interference with nature, there are times when this protection against natural intervention has been allowed, as in these true examples:
       a.  In Rwanda, on the African continent, Roman Catholic religious women took birth control pills to protect them against the horror of random rapes perpetrated by evil warriors.
        b.  I have been in therapeutic Roman Catholic supported group homes where young, single mothers, with babies, who were residents, were directed to take birth control pills if they were permitted to spend weekends off the premises with their families and boyfriends.
        c.  The Vatican supports the use of condoms, at least in Africa, for the prevention, and spread of HIV, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Although the above three examples are extraordinary situations, they are a recognition of the knowledge God has given us to understand how to use biological pharmaceuticals to protect women from the unintended consequences of an unwanted or forced pregnancy; or, to protect people from being exposed to sexually transmitted diseases which shorten life.

Roman Catholic institutions, including social service agencies and the administration, don't want to violate Church teaching on use of natural family planning by a mandate to cover artificial contraception in health insurance plans. Therefore, they have taken the position of being opposed to a mandate to require health insurance programs, provided for their female church or agency employees, to pay for contraception.

Perhaps, Roman Catholic institutions can self insure to avoid paying for a contraception mandate.

Needless to say, young women of child bearing age who currently work for Church institutions are likely paying privately for contraception, with money earned in their salaries. So, however you look at it, either through insurance or salaries, the Church is paying for contraception when a woman chooses to use it.

But, for the Church to claim the mandated inclusion is an infringement on the law of "separation of church and state", when, in fact, it has allowed for the use of contraception in certain situations, in my opinion, is hypocritical. And that's the truth as I see it.