• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men’s Viagra access

Daktoria

Banned
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
397
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Private
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men

Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner is the third female lawmaker to introduce a bill that would limit men's access to Viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs to make a statement about the dozens of anti-abortion bills that have passed statehouses around the country over the last year.
Turner is opposed to a proposed bill that would prohibit abortion after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can happen as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. The Dayton Daily News reports that Turner's bill would mandate that men seeking Viagra be "tested for heart problems, receive counseling about possible side effects and receive information about 'pursuing celibacy as a viable lifestyle choice.'"

I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.

The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.
 
This is happening because states are introducing legislation that makes it more and more difficult for a woman to get an abortion or have access to certain kinds of birth control, or even access to proper medical care in regard to reproductive health. These lawmakers probably do not expect their bills to pass, but are, rather, making a statement about the law in general getting involved in someone's reproductive health.

ED drugs are taken by a range of men in a broad spectrum of different situations. They aren't only for the satisfaction of women (who are satisfied better by cunnilingus or manual stimulation anyway).
 
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men



I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.

The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.

Its happening because of the whole contraception cluster**** with religious institutions and frankly I welcome it. The GOP has claimed (some at least) that there is no medical reason for female contraception and hence these female lawmakers are saying there is no medical reason for Viagra in most men. Now if a man does have a problem getting it up, then he should not only supply a legal document from a doctor and his wife, but also be subjugated to an invasive rectal exam to see if it is true. After all that is what the GOP wants to do with women in some states..

They should also target male masturbation, since that is killing babies as well and deserve just as harsh treatment as women getting an abortion.
 
This is happening because states are introducing legislation that makes it more and more difficult for a woman to get an abortion or have access to certain kinds of birth control, or even access to proper medical care in regard to reproductive health. These lawmakers probably do not expect their bills to pass, but are, rather, making a statement about the law in general getting involved in someone's reproductive health.

ED drugs are taken by a range of men in a broad spectrum of different situations. They aren't only for the satisfaction of women (who are satisfied better by cunnilingus or manual stimulation anyway).

Can you elaborate about that "spectrum of different situations"?

I'm not familiar with any men taking ED drugs outside of performing for their wives.

I understand the abortion parallel concern, but this seems backwards. Only women in dysfunctional marriages (or women unfamiliar with marriage) who want to humiliate their husbands even more would favor this. Loving wives would appreciate the embarrassment already.
 
I dont agree with healthcare/taxes paying for abortion (for other than health reasons), contraceptives, birth control, or ED drugs. None of them are actual health concerns.
 
Its happening because of the whole contraception cluster**** with religious institutions and frankly I welcome it. The GOP has claimed (some at least) that there is no medical reason for female contraception and hence these female lawmakers are saying there is no medical reason for Viagra in most men. Now if a man does have a problem getting it up, then he should not only supply a legal document from a doctor and his wife, but also be subjugated to an invasive rectal exam to see if it is true. After all that is what the GOP wants to do with women in some states..

They should also target male masturbation, since that is killing babies as well and deserve just as harsh treatment as women getting an abortion.

Are you a masochist?
 
I dont agree with healthcare/taxes paying for abortion (for other than health reasons), contraceptives, birth control, or ED drugs. None of them are actual health concerns.

I disagree. Sexual satisfaction is definitely a health concern.

However, using government to relieve this doesn't work. Sexual satisfaction is an organic condition, and that requires an organic treatment, not bureaucratic intermediation.

Bureaucracy... petrifies the spontaneity of (making) love. It defeats the purpose.
 
The GOP has claimed (some at least) that there is no medical reason for female contraception and hence these female lawmakers are saying there is no medical reason for Viagra in most men.

Can you tell me who claims there is no medical reason for contraception (hormone therapy, prevent cysts etc) and which businesses or schools exclude coverage for contraception to deal with actual medical problems? Can you also tell me which religious organziations that refuse coverage of contreaception for birth control and abortion reasons also provide coverage for viagra?
 
Last edited:
See, the Dems really do want to make health care affordable for everyone.;)

What a waste of taxpayers money for our lawmakers to be working on bills like this.
 
What idiot democrat thought the best move to "protest" a catholic university not providing birth control pills, to introduce anti-viagra legislation to the nation? seriously, this whole BC thing is an act by the Obama administration to get re-elected using bull**** nonsense. :lamo
 
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men

I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.

The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.

Ridiculous. This is all in response to Ms. Flude's testimony a few weeks ago.

With our country going to hell in a handbasket economically speaking...with public pensions a freakin' mess...with deficit spending at all-time highs at the state level -- these chickies that are "making their point" are making a stupid one.
 
What idiot democrat thought the best move to "protest" a catholic university not providing birth control pills, to introduce anti-viagra legislation to the nation? seriously, this whole BC thing is an act by the Obama administration to get re-elected using bull**** nonsense. :lamo

Because they think religious freedom is a joke.
 
Ridiculous. This is all in response to Ms. Flude's testimony a few weeks ago.

With our country going to hell in a handbasket economically speaking...with public pensions a freakin' mess...with deficit spending at all-time highs at the state level -- these chickies that are "making their point" are making a stupid one.

it's NOT a stupid point, the WAY they are making it is stupid.
 
it's NOT a stupid point, the WAY they are making it is stupid.

What point are they trying to make though? What do they hope to gain? What benefits are they shooting for that they don't already have?

Religious organizations don't want their health insurance to pay for something that they preach at the pulpit is wrong. I can understand that. Beyond that, what is it that they're fighting FOR?
 
What point are they trying to make though? What do they hope to gain? What benefits are they shooting for that they don't already have?

Religious organizations don't want their health insurance to pay for something that they preach at the pulpit is wrong. I can understand that. Beyond that, what is it that they're fighting FOR?

They are fighting for the right to tell someone else to pay for what they want. In the case of health insurance, they argue that birth control is a woman's health issue.

Fine, then I argue that food is a human health issue, and basic caloric intake should be covered by health insurance. I also argue that gym memberships be covered since its preventative healthcare.

While I'm at it, I argue that health insurance should then also cover toe nail clippers, hair cuts, self tanner, vitamins, bandaids, toilet paper, tissues, tampons, q-tips, makeup remover, shoes, clothing, snow blowers, air conditioners, heat, and money. All of these are directly related to health, and obviously should be covered by health insurance.
 
What point are they trying to make though? What do they hope to gain? What benefits are they shooting for that they don't already have?

Religious organizations don't want their health insurance to pay for something that they preach at the pulpit is wrong. I can understand that. Beyond that, what is it that they're fighting FOR?

This to me, seems like vindictive payback.
 
I think it is a good idea. If controls women's bodies in relation to sexuality, government also should control men's bodies in relation to sexuality. The reason for proposing such legislation is to establish the Republican's legislation singularly targets women.
 
What point are they trying to make though? What do they hope to gain? What benefits are they shooting for that they don't already have?

Religious organizations don't want their health insurance to pay for something that they preach at the pulpit is wrong. I can understand that. Beyond that, what is it that they're fighting FOR?

it was in the op.........the trend has been to try to impose ridiculous abortion restrictions on women. the point is that abortion is a legal procedure and women DO have the right to privacy. that means it's unreasonable to expect a woman to undergo an unnecessary procedure to obtain one. so, why not force men to undergo unreasonable procedures to obtain a drug that enhances their sex life? point: men and women are stilled treated, and viewed, from a healthcare perspective, very differently, and that needs to end.
 
They are fighting for the right to tell someone else to pay for what they want. In the case of health insurance, they argue that birth control is a woman's health issue.

Fine, then I argue that food is a human health issue, and basic caloric intake should be covered by health insurance. I also argue that gym memberships be covered since its preventative healthcare.

While I'm at it, I argue that health insurance should then also cover toe nail clippers, hair cuts, self tanner, vitamins, bandaids, toilet paper, tissues, tampons, q-tips, makeup remover, shoes, clothing, snow blowers, air conditioners, heat, and money. All of these are directly related to health, and obviously should be covered by health insurance.

completely untrue, but thanks for the input.
 
it was in the op.........the trend has been to try to impose ridiculous abortion restrictions on women. the point is that abortion is a legal procedure and women DO have the right to privacy. that means it's unreasonable to expect a woman to undergo an unnecessary procedure to obtain one. so, why not force men to undergo unreasonable procedures to obtain a drug that enhances their sex life? point: men and women are stilled treated, and viewed, from a healthcare perspective, very differently, and that needs to end.

So, in your opinion, why is a man barred from having input on whether or not you can abort the fetus? Or does penetration count as consent?
 
They are fighting for the right to tell someone else to pay for what they want. In the case of health insurance, they argue that birth control is a woman's health issue.

Most healthcare insurance policies already pay for birth control pills and every single one of them already pays for every health exam a woman could ever have.

This is a scam, folks. A fantasy invention of the Democratic Party to convince those on the fence that the Republican Party is targetting women. Gimme' a break.
 
Most healthcare insurance policies already pay for birth control pills and every single one of them already pays for every health exam a woman could ever have.

This is a scam, folks. A fantasy invention of the Democratic Party to convince those on the fence that the Republican Party is targetting women. Gimme' a break.

I know, but its fun to watch them dance.
 
Third female lawmaker introduces bill to limit men

I don't really get why this is happening. ED drugs are taken by elderly men to satisfy their wives.

The only justification I can imagine is women are threatening to cheat. In case young'uns didn't know, men's sex drives tend to plummet as we get older.

ED drugs treat real medical problems that aren't limited to the "elderly"--for example, many standard meds can cause ED--diuretics, anti-depressants, and blood pressure pills.
It's not just about older guys who've had prostatic cancer and loss function.

I'm looking forward to the older men (defined here as not 20-somethings, LOL) on this board putting to rest the idea that their sex drives have plummeted. And maybe their affirmation that being able to get it up is something they desire for themselves and not necessarily at the demand of wives who threaten to cheat.
 
Back
Top Bottom