1069

The pill is simply necessary for some people, for health reasons; especially to the uninsured.
I had a bleeding problem that got pretty severe over the past couple of years. I was getting very anemic.
Until I got medical insurance and was able to go to a gynocologist and get the problem treated and resolved with minor surgery, birth control pills from Planned Parenthood were really saving my life, by controlling the bleeding- which had been almost constant, and often very heavy. Without them, I doubt I would've been able to work, so getting insurance would've been out of the question. Before I got on the pills, I was having to leave work because of bleeding so heavy and clotty that it sometimes could not be controlled with pads or tampons, or even a combination of the two.

At Planned Parenthood, they told me that the Pill was an interim measure that might help regulate my period, but that I probably ought to go to a gynocologist when I was able to, because the problem was a polyp (benign, fortunately) that the nurse practitioners at Planned Parenthood were unable to completely remove. They were able to get a sample of it to send in for a biopsy and determine that it was not cancer, but they were not able to get the whole thing out and cure my problem. Complete removal of the polyp required, as I said, minor surgery; and that required a doctor.

But for the more than a year between the time this problem began and the time I was able to get medical insurance, find the right doctor, and get the problem resolved, birth control pills were as necessary to me as breathing.
I wasn't able to function, work, or go out in public without them.

You guys thought I was just being silly and bombastic when I wrote that little essay about how the government should provide feminine hygiene products free of charge; you don't understand that I was going bankrupt trying to pay for these things, going through a tampon an hour constantly for over a year whenever I had to be out in public, and at home just sitting on a towel.


So anyway, the gist of that story is, birth control pills made it feasible, for awhile, for me to remain a functional and contributing citizen.
Yes, my family finally had to step in and get me medical insurance, because the anemia was getting worse and worse. But I was working toward getting insurance. One more raise, and I would've had it myself. I would've had enough money to get it myself, and hormonal contraceptives were buying me the time I needed to do that.

This is only one situation, but I've heard of many other women who have needed birth control pills for one thing and another. I believe I've read that beside regulating bleeding, they are sometimes used to shrink fibroids, reduce pain for people who have debilitating menstrual cramps, treat fibrocystic breast disorder, and for a variety of other non-contraceptive purposes.
Yes, people with alarming symptoms should go to real doctors, not to a reproductive health clinics to get birth control pills from nurse practitioners, which temporarily mask their symptoms rather than curing the problem.
But until everyone has access to health care, "should" is irrelevant.
Women still have to be able to function one way or the other, and many of them need hormonal contraception in order to do that, until they can come up with a way to get their problems taken care of.
Because most gynocological problems are considered to be of a non-critical, non-emergency nature, the poor and uninsured often can't get these things taken care of in the hospital emergency room. If a non-pregnant woman presents at the ER complaining of heavy or uncontrollable bleeding, personnel there will examine her to ascertain that nothing immediately life threatening- such as a perforation, laceration, or puncture- is going on, and then pack her vagina with cotton and tell her to make an appointment with her gynocologist as soon as possible.

For poor people, the need for contraceptive access is critical, and not just for birth control but for a variety of other health needs.

__________________
Lightdemon: "Is 10 going to outer space or something?"
Jerry: "...yes, 10 is going to outerspace."

Summerwind

1069, it is true enough that the pill is used for other conditions, but I don't think that is necessarily the point here. And I fear that stating things as you did in this last post, would encourage the idea that contraceptives for purposes other than contraception should be allowed, but as contraception perhaps is negotiable. I think it is great that they can be useful for other than contraception, but it is imperative (IMO) that they continue to be available and promoted for contraception so women can avoid accidental pregnancies and thereby reduce the requests for abortion.

roguenuke

I said a goal, not their goal. Most sensible people would make a reduction in unwanted pregnancies their goal, especially those who want to end abortions. The fewer unwanted pregnancies there are, the fewer abortions there would be. Not too hard to get the connection here.

However, there are parts of this I don't have a problem with. I don't think any doctor should be forced to offer a woman an actual abortion or contraception for that matter. I just don't like them all to be lumped together. There should be a way to ensure that rape victims are allowed access to morning-after pills in hospitals and for other women to get them at pharmacies. I agree with informing a woman of all her options, especially if there is a medical problem, but proper information would have to come from an unbiased source or be totally agreed upon by both sides.

1069

Yes, that is true enough. Good point.
It's akin to arguing that abortion should be legal because sometimes it's necessary when problem pregnancies threaten women's lives and health, an argument I despise, as it misses the point: that abortion should be legal because women are human beings and as such have a right to sovereignty over their bodies.

I guess this whole wretched experience is still very fresh in my mind, and that's why I thought of it. It's upsetting to me to think of uninsured women not being able to go to the clinic and get the pill for medical conditions.
Of course, it's equally upsetting if they can't get them for what they are primarily used for, which is preventing unwanted pregnancy.
Women have a right to try and prevent unwanted pregnancy with every tool currently at their disposal. The government has no right to forbid them access to contraception.

Summerwind

I certainly do NOT agree with the bolded part of your statement. If doctors, nurses, or pharmacists do not desire to prescribe/fill requests for the medical needs of patients, they should get into another business altogether. Every medical professional should be required to address the needs of all their patients, not just some of them.

Not to mention that our constitution requires no discrimination based on religion, etc, etc. It doesn't say that the discrimination cannot be based on the religion of the receiver; it says based on religion, which means the religion of EITHER party, the receiver/patient or the provider/doctor.

1069

I agree with this as well.
Doctors cannot refuse to meet the health care needs of women- gynecological needs, which are specific to women- and still expect to retain their licenses.
It is sexually discriminatory.
Women cannot function as equals in this society when men have access to comprehensive medical care and women do not; when the reasons behind this are religious, it makes me feel that religion is what needs to be banned in America, rather than contraception, or abortion, or vaginas.

Now, some people may argue that it is discriminatory also to force doctors to meet their female patients' health care needs when doing so comes in conflict with their religious beliefs; but i would propose that while one chooses one's religious beliefs, one does not get to choose one's sex.
Therefore, preventing sexual discrimination should take precedence over preventing "religious discrimination", if that's what forcing doctors to take care of the needs of their patients is.

roguenuke

I think you may have took what I said wrong, because the meaning was that the options a woman has should be told to her if her health is in jeopardy. A low-risk pregnancy would not automatically put a woman's health at risk. But I am not of the opinion that every woman who gets pregnant should be "offered" an abortion, no matter what financial situation she is in. And as long as the use of contraceptives is solely for protection against pregnancy, then a doctor should not be forced to subscribe it. I don't agree with a doctor that doesn't subscribe it, but highly doubt that truly that many refuse. And I will make a slight modification in saying that doctors directly employed by the government should never be able to refuse to prescribe contraceptives since the government is inherently secular. This way an option would always be open for women who could not get them from their own doctors by way of the health department. It should be in the rights of private doctors to decide what to subscribe to their patients as long as their patients' health is not affected. If the patient has a problem with their doctor's decision, then maybe they should look for another doctor.

Summerwind

So are you suggesting that only "health department" doctors get gov't monies? Whether through insurance or medicare or health depts; I believe that all doctors involved in OBGYN end up receiving some of their $$'s from the gov't either directly or indirectly. None the less, since even private orgs/entities are not allowed to discrimate based on religion, neither should private health providers be allowed to discriminate because of their personal religious views. I don't believe that low risk pregnancies should be required to give abortion information UNLESS it is requested. If it is requested, then the information and the procedure should be required to be offered by any OBGYN or qualified health provider.

roguenuke

I don't think receiving government money should be the same as being a part of the government. The government should not consider only one or two practices of a licensed doctor or hospital, but rather the whole operation of such medical providers when determining if they need government money. And as far as insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid go, I believe that as long as the doctor/hospital is licensed and the procedure improves the person's health then it should be paid for as appropriate and the government should have limited say in what is not acceptable use of those health care benefits.
If the provider of the service is deciding not to provide certain services to any people, then it is not discrimination. I don't see the discrimination in this case anyway. Discrimination is basing a decision about another person on characteristics that the other person may or may not have. A person is not being discriminated against just because a provider within a certain group of services does not provide all services that others in that group may offer.

I agree that information on abortion should be offered if the patient asks for it but that information should include all the risks or potential risks of that patient's particular pregnancy and the risks or potential risks of having an abortion. And I highly disagree on saying a doctor should be required to offer a procedure he does not agree with. If a doctor did not think a person should have their tonsels removed, then it is that doctor's right to refuse to perform the surgery on the patient if the patient's immediate health is not in danger. It is also the patient's right to go to another doctor for that surgery. I don't think I've ever heard of a case in the US where a doctor refused to perform an emergency abortion if the woman's life was in danger and that is what it took to save her.

Summerwind

Okay, I can see your point to refusing to do a procedure that the doctor considered "medically" unnecessary. I don't agree, but I see your point; and IF that was the reason given, but that isn't the reason being given; religious belief is the reason given. So you've sort of got point, but they are not using that point making your point invalid to the topic, IMO.