One of the ongoing issues in this election is going to be waking people up to the fact that John McCain is a grade A, totally not moderate social conservative. This is critical for that swing vote, especially those swing voters that say, “Well, I don’t think abortion should be illegal, but it’s bad to use it as birth control.” Translation of that sentiment: “I want to be able to have an abortion if I so desire, but I reserve the right to gossip about others in tones that indicate that I’m so scandalized.” These people would shy away from a ban, of course, but they probably can be convinced to vote for someone they erroneously believe talks the anti-choice talk but won’t do the anti-choice walk.
Or, long story short: McCain is running the same campaign that worked so well for Bush. The “compassionate conservative”, i.e. panders to the haters but wants you to think deep down inside that he’s not really a hater. This goes for the gay thing, too. Bush pushed for the marriage ban, but to maintain the illusion of compassion, the Bush administration actually tried to rein in some of their crazier homophobes. Not sure what the line in the sand is on reproductive rights, though, since the Bush administration appointed a bunch of misogynists to the Supreme Court and passed a really terrible piece of anti-abortion legislation and tried to block emergency contraception from being sold over the counter.
Educating people about McCain’s hard right views on women’s rights will be an uphill battle this election, but I was pleased to see that he was helping us out with his mailers.
Click the link to see a bigger view.
On the downside: The flier uses the unavoidable euphemism “pro-life”, but we can’t expect a major Presidential candidate to advertise himself as “anti-woman” or even “anti-choice”, even as those terms might be a lot more accurate. But otherwise, I think this is a great assist to those of us trying to reveal the truth.
First of all, the whole thing reeks of defensiveness. I like the use of his wife draped over him, which in an ad like this is supposed to convey the message that regardless of his odious views on women’s rights, McCain still gets someone to hang out with him. A better idea would have been to put his daughter in the ad, to convey the message, “Hey, I’ll throw her under the bus as an egalitarian gesture.”
The “24 years” thing is somewhat strange to me. He wants you to know that his loathing of women’s autonomy goes way back and hasn’t wavered, that number seems low. You know, especially considering how old he is. He’s been in Congress for 26 years, so what was he doing those other two years? Dicking around and paying for abortions that he was the original cause of? Foolishly allowing his second wife to use contraception? Wishing that his first wife had just aborted the pregnancies that led to the children who wouldn’t speak to him after he left her for a richer, younger, more politically viable wife that had been his mistress during the first marriage? It really undermines his claims to be always anti-choice and never wavering about that.
And that tagline is like the ultimate in defensive posturing: “Not just recently. Always. Unwavering.” Like Lindsay says, protesting too much tone to it, even though he’s had the properly wretched voting record on women’s rights. But this is where he’s doing us a favor, because the widespread belief that McCain just recently came to the anti-choice fold actually works for him. People like to believe he’s just pandering on reproductive rights, and that when push comes to shove, he’ll suddenly remember that he doesn’t really hate women, and that he has a daughter who he’d like not to suffer. But don’t believe it. Like his ad says, he’s an unwavering misogynist, a true believer and a shithead. If you want evidence of him waffling, look away from abortion rights and look towards his drifting rightward on torture.
69 Responses to “Taking McCain on his word”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
This youtube clip should be instructional
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLQGWpRVA7o
Every Clinton supporter who claims intent to vote McCain in November should have that flyer mailed to them every day between now and the general election.
“Well, I don’t think abortion should be illegal, but it’s bad to use it as birth control.” Translation of that sentiment: “I want to be able to have an abortion if I so desire, but I reserve the right to gossip about others in tones that indicate that I’m so scandalized.”
I don’t agree with this translation. I’ve said this myself, and all I mean by it is that…to use a cliche, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Granted, I don’t think most people think, “Oh, well, I won’t go on the pill/use a condom because I could just have an abortion instead,” but I don’t doubt that those people exist. And I think most prochoice people can agree that it’s better not to get pregnant at all than to need an abortion. So…I really don’t think there’s any subtext in that sentiment. It’s not that complicated.
Notice the motif that looks like an engagement ring, right over the name McCain.
Then again, they don’t want to offend anyone who would be totally gaga over a molar pregnancy just because it involved a fertilized egg … and sometimes disembodied fetal parts … and cancer.
How someone who’s sort of obviously a tool and a pretty reliable hardliner came to be known as a maverick and a stand-up guy, I’ll never know. It’s the real embeddedness of the maverick narrative that makes me nervous for November. I mean, it’s not like he’s even being especially subtle about his rightwingy dogwhistles and whatnot. I guess there’s no way but forward, but it’d be nice to have that perpetually queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach.
Er, by which I mean, it’d be nice not to have that perpetually queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach. Stockholm Syndrome, anyone?
Kay - except that the solution to “people shouldn’t use abortion as birth control” is to give people comprehensive sex ed, so they know what birth control is and how it works, and then make sure that they have access to birth control. The conservative position is pretty much the opposite of that.
McCain On Abortion (Unedited Full Quote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Trbaufpok8
Is it she who is uber-creepy, or the fact that she’s touching McCain with a smile?
Saying, “Well, I don’t think abortion should be illegal, but it’s bad to use it as birth control” does insinuate that “pro-choice” means “Doesn’t think abortion should be illegal and thinks it’s best used as one’s only form of birth control.”
Which, you know, it doesn’t. The former sentiment contains an unnecessary descriptor.
Hillary Clinton Abortion (rambling in FL? Moral dimension&common ground)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69e-hmmy14
If you look at Lindsay’s post prior to the one linked to, you’ll note that McCain seems to be implying he’s ok with laws against contraception also. He needs to be asked directly and often whether he believes in Griswold and if so, why does he seem to be speaking in codes that imply he is against it.
I am amazed that many Democratic women say they won’t vote for Obama if he beats Clinton. They do realize that they’re taking away pro-choice Supreme Court nominees, right? They very well may be taking away Associate Justice Hillary Clinton and replacing her with another Thomas/Scalia clone. And I’m sure that that’s worth all the slights Obama has made against Clinton, like the time he did that thing that was kind of a gesture… or that time he made that reference to that pronoun and didn’t include a feminine one… or that time he managed to win more delegates than her… or whatever it was that he did that was clearly sexist and unfair, like competing in more states and those caucuses. Or whatever the hell it was that put Ferraro’s (trying hard not to be sexist even when appropriate) possibly-unisex undergarments into an uncomfortable position.
Kay, abortions cost a considerable amount of money. The only people who might think the way you are describing are the rich or the ignorant young who’ve been taking abstinence sex ec.
John McCain - “I didn’t make Admiral like my dad and my granddad, I was almost the worst in my class at Annapolis. Being a flyboy was great for getting pussy, but then I was shot down and that sucked. I barely got through that Keating Five thing with my ass intact. That asshole George Bush shot me down again in 2000. In short, a lot of my dreams have gone to shit.”
“But with your help, your money, and your vote, you can make an old man’s dying dream come true.
If you elect me, I’ll call Angela Merckel a cunt to her face, not just feel her up.
I’ll send that Iranian guy a special delievery Cock-O-Gram - Hey fuckhead, suck on this! …and give him a nuclear chaser.
I’ll finish eliminating all taxes on the rich guys, so you can admire them even more.
I’ll stop those sluts from getting out of trouble - if you get yourself knocked up, it’s your own damn fault and you’ll stay that way, goddammit!
I’ll make sure Iraq never turns into another Vietnam - a valiant struggle that ended much too soon, before every loose cent in the Republic could be put into the pockets of the big defense companies. No sir! We’ll stay as long as it takes to get the job done!
I’ll make sure to appoint young and fanatical judges everywhere I can - just so no liberal will ever get away with anything again.
Under my command, no tree will be left standing, no bird will be left flying, no fish left swimming, no air too clean to dirty, no water too pure to contaminate - goddammit, we’re gonna keep this country working until nature has been thoroughly put in her goddam place!
But don’t think I’m just like George Bush, oh no! I’m completely different!
I have never been on a mountain bike in my life, period! And if I’m elected, I promise I never will ride one! And you can count on it! And I promise to stay away from those Segways too…”
…This message brought to you by the Committee To Get Four More Years Of Bushy Goodness…
…I’m John McCain and I approve this message…
This is awesome. Hopefully everybody who is even remotely considering voting for McCain out of pique that their preferred Dem candidate didn’t get the nomination will read it. (please!!)
I think now is a good time to start a movement to make the birth control pill an over-the-counter medicine. Why should women (and girls) should have to see a doctor to get a medicine that has been proven safe for decades?
I’d love to see the unscientific Republican response to that.
And take away that second should as you read that, please.
Gah, seeing this kind of stuff just infuriates me. The majority of my coworkers are military and federal employees and almost all of them still think of mccain as the maverick straight talk express guy. no matter how many links I email them or things i show them they dont change their opinion and arent open to debate. do you have a novelty gavel i could start whacking people with?
That isn’t his daughter?
I’m really getting creeped out by all this plastic surgery. There was a brief period where someone with good plastic surgery looked a notch younger, but now that everyone of a certain level of money/fame is doing it, it just makes a woman (or man) look old. Because that is what rich old people look like.
Vampires with a fake tan.
Here’s a question I’d like to see someone ask Senator McCain at an open forum:
“Senator, I have a question about abortion. If you had a daughter, and if she were raped, would you expect her to bear the rapist’s child? Whose choice do you think that is?”
This seems to me to be a useful revival of the death penalty question that tripped up Dukakis in ‘88. And it ought to create a good Catch-22 for McCain: answer one way, and he alienates moderates; answer another, he alienates the far-right base. Of course the questioner can’t appear to be asking about McCain’s real daughter. That would let him act indignant and duck the question.
Thoughts?
Third paragraph below the mailer, you use “wife” and then “that”. Should be “who”.
Granted, I don’t think most people think, “Oh, well, I won’t go on the pill/use a condom because I could just have an abortion instead,” but I don’t doubt that those people exist. And I think most prochoice people can agree that it’s better not to get pregnant at all than to need an abortion. So…I really don’t think there’s any subtext in that sentiment. It’s not that complicated.
Yes, because god knows it’s easier and more convenient for me to have surgery costing hundreds of dollars and a counselling session every two months instead of popping a pill daily.
…I’m John McCain and I approve this message…
We’re going to need a lot more pretzels.
I think now is a good time to start a movement to make the birth control pill an over-the-counter medicine. Why should women (and girls) should have to see a doctor to get a medicine that has been proven safe for decades?
Two things, Jon:
1) You’re underestimating the intense power of Republicans going “Sluts! Sluts everywhere!” (or “Fags, fags everywhere!” or “Terrorists! Terrorists everywhere!” depending on the situation). We’d also probably need some Democrat, or at lease sane Republican, appointees in the FDA before we could even have the OCT BC conversation.
2) Gynecologists use the yearly pill scrip as a carrot to get women in for PAP smears. Lots of women, especially young ones, would probably skip this important bit of preventative care if they didn’t have to get their prescription refilled. As the HPV vaccine kicks in, this will become less important, but we still have a few years.
One can always try to change the drug distribution law. Online pharmacies, etc.
Kay, why do you care how women “use” abortion?
Not flaming you, but I’m honestly interested.
“I think now is a good time to start a movement to make the birth control pill an over-the-counter medicine. Why should women (and girls) should have to see a doctor to get a medicine that has been proven safe for decades?”
There are a lot of women who have health issues that preclude using hormonal contraception, or whose health needs more than typical monitoring if they decide to use it. I’d be happier to see a prescription for the pill to run longer than a year, but I do think there should be at least an initial consultation with a doctor or other health care professional.
The pill is very convenient, but for an older woman who smokes, for instance, it can be quite dangerous. My doctor would refuse to prescribe it for me (Im 49 and I smoke) and rightly so. Without some oversight of who should/can take it, I think complication rates could easily rise.
I think now is a good time to start a movement to make the birth control pill an over-the-counter medicine. Why should women (and girls) should have to see a doctor to get a medicine that has been proven safe for decades?
Possibly because it’s not all that safe.
Don’t get me wrong — I think we owe the fact that we are currently considered by the law to be full human beings to the Pill. I am *very* much in favor of the Pill. I believe it was the greatest invention for womankind since we invented the basket. But my personal experience tells me no, it’s not really safe.
See, I went on a new pill in 1999 because I had a new boyfriend. And he had a lot of drama in his life — his wife, who had been a friend of mine, had abandoned him and turned a lot of our mutual friends against him — and his drama spilled over into my life, and I got stressed out. So when I started suffering from paranoia, anxiety, and suicidal ideations, I thought it was all the stress. I wasn’t seeing a gynecologist — I’d seen one the one time to get the Pill, and after that not again, because I no longer had insurance. And when I got help from a psychiatrist, she wrote me scripts for Proxac and Paxil, and had blood work done to make sure it wasn’t my thyroid or something.
No one told me there was any possibility it was the Pill. I figured it out for myself when I tried to kill myself because my boyfriend yelled at me for getting the wrong tomatoes, *after* I had a new job and a new life and everything had stabilized and I was even taking prescription meds for depression.
So I switched to another one, which promptly made me gain 30 pounds. I switched to another one after that, and it made me paranoid and anxious, but by then I knew what to watch for and switched off it. Finally I ended up on a Pill that worked for me.
To the best of my knowledge there is no OTC medication where there are like twenty-seven different types of medicine to do the same thing (I mean, pain has aspirin, acetaminophen, ibuprofen, ketoprofen and naproxen; sneezing has pseudoephedrine and phenylephrine; there are only maybe ten different antihistamines… but my god the number of Pill formulations out there) and the wrong one can actually make you want to kill yourself.
So no, birth control isn’t safe. It’s great, it’s necessary, but it isn’t *safe* — it has worse potential side effects than any other OTC from taking it as directed. (Of course other OTCs are to stop your head from hurting and your nose from running. BC is to prevent you from getting pregnant, a condition which can permanently alter your body or even kill you. So the risk is *worth* it… but it still exists and is substantial.)
Kyso K,
1. The awful power of the Party That Cried Slut is not denied by me or anyone. But I think it’s about time to start having that conversation just to point out that the requirement to see a doctor is a barrier to many teens and poor women who could easily afford this medicine but can’t get it with confidentiality, affordability, or convenience once a doctor’s visit is added to the mix.
2. The pap test is valuable, and it should be part of a yearly checkup. But not getting pregnant is a much more immediate medical need for those who don’t want to get pregnant than is a test for cervical cancer. If you really think every woman should get a yearly checkup, then the best way to promote that is to suggest that every woman should get a yearly checkup. How to do that? I think it’s important, but I think more women would use the pill if they didn’t have to see a doctor first. Will that cost lives? I’m not sure, but I imagine it would. But will it prevent unwanted pregnancies? That’s the tradeoff: less unwanted pregnancies with more cervical cancer. Not a great bargain, but I’m still for it.
And squashed,
Online pharmacies are out there, but still require a prescription.
Kay–
Here is my favorite response to the ‘But they shouldn’t use abortion as birth control!’ myth that I have ever seen– it’s very true to my experience working for an organization that provides abortions.
“I hear this [myth] so frequently and yet in decades of providing abortion services to more than 30,000 women, I met only two women who used abortion as a birth control method. And they were absolutely right to do so. These two women experienced blood clots while on birth control pills, ectopic pregnancies with the IUD, and they were allergic to latex condoms and spermicide. Using the rhythm method with abortion as backup was the best method for them. I’ve never met a woman who cavalierly chose abortion as her method of birth control.”
From here.
Do any of you who don’t support over-the-counter birth control support over-the-counter morning-after pills? Don’t the women who get accidentally/maybe pregnant seem to be in the category of women who should get a pap test?
I’m for women getting access to the medicine they want without first having to go through what someone says they need. Even if it’s for their own good.
The people who do McBush’s mailers must all be closet Dems, because that is a terrible, awful picture of his wife. He looks okay for a guy his age, but she looks like what you’d get if you dipped a zombie in liquid Teflon.
“Well, I don’t think abortion should be illegal, but it’s bad to use it as birth control.” Translation of that sentiment: “I want to be able to have an abortion if I so desire, but I reserve the right to gossip about others in tones that indicate that I’m so scandalized.”
I think there’s a couple of other translations, too.
One possible translation is “I want to be able to have an abortion when I think it’s necessary, and I want other women to be able to have an abortion when I think it’s necessary.” It’s another version “other people have the right to tell women what to do” or “pregnant women are public property.”
Another (and we’ve seen this attitude in some recent articles) could be: “Abortion should be legal as long as the woman promises to be tortured about the decision and feel bad about it afterwards.”
Most often, however, it probably translates to “I think abortion should be legal, but now I’m going to invoke a whole field of strawfeminists who relish killing babies and selfish sluts who want to fit into their prom dresses to convince you that abortion should be banned.”
If you look at Lindsay’s post prior to the one linked to, you’ll note that McCain seems to be implying he’s ok with laws against contraception also. He needs to be asked directly and often whether he believes in Griswold and if so, why does he seem to be speaking in codes that imply he is against it.
The only right wing politician of prominence who was brave/stupid enough to give an answer on this question was Rick Santorum. It was an interesting and telling answer—he felt Griswold should stand, but Eisenstadt v. Baird, which gave the right to obtain contraception to single people should be overturned. There’s no sound legal reasoning that could create that outcome, but Justice Kennedy’s opinions alone are good evidence that sound legal reasoning isn’t a baseline requirement for a Supreme Court justice.
“Do any of you who don’t support over-the-counter birth control support over-the-counter morning-after pills? Don’t the women who get accidentally/maybe pregnant seem to be in the category of women who should get a pap test?”
I support OTC morning after but perscribed birth control. For most of the reasons specified above, including my own tales of woe with the BC pill (which I take for hormonal regulation specifically and not BC in particular). The real difference between the two which I don’t think you are grasping is the effect on the body. The birth control pill is a slow build in the system with long-term results. The morning after pill goes off with a bang and is (mostly at least) done and out of the system within days.
So ya, I’m all for people being able to make a split second decision (72 hours efficacy isn’t always suitable for getting in to see your doctor, and there’s always the chance to read up about it and talk to medical professionals before taking the morning after pill), but when it’s a longer term decision with far more potential side effects and interactions… well then I’m in favour of the woman speaking to a medical professional before getting the pill or re-upping the perscription she already has.
of course, that’s just my opinion, ymmv.
Did you notice the person who talked about the fact that birth control pills CAN be dangerous, and it can be a good thing for doctors to supervise them because of that fact? I know several women who’ve had thoughts of suicide because of their birth control pills. My reactions to them are much milder, but still suck (and I would refuse to use b/c pills as birth control if I didn’t need to take them for another medical condition).
I still favor birth control pills being OTC — but the argument against it is substantial, not just babysitting poor womenz.
Jon,
Plan B is a one-time thing. Birth control pills are a commitment. So, yes, I support Plan B being sold OTC, where a pharmacist will instruct the patient how to use it correctly, but birth control pills are not only potentially dangerous (as previous commenters have said) but also require a commitment on the part of the woman. If women could by the pill OTC, would they be properly counseled on how to take the pill correctly? Would they be aware that the pill does not prevent STDs? Possibly, but possibly not.
Let me tell you, the pill has some very weird side effects that women need to be aware of that vary from brand to brand. I’ve been on about 8 different brands, myself, some of which caused some scary psychological side effects.
For OTC birth control, there are always condoms. Cheap, easy, and pretty widely available. Let’s keep encouraging this.
Do any of you who don’t support over-the-counter birth control support over-the-counter morning-after pills?
Yep.
Mainly for reasons that echo those above vis a vis the daily pill being slightly more complicated for some women. There are also a lot of different pill options with different hormone levels, etc, which is another reason consulting a professional is probably for the best.
I’m in favor of the morning after pill being OTC, though, because it’s a one time thing and thus unlikely to cause long term effects.
I don’t respond well to Teh Pill. While obviously my doctor could not have known this when she first prescribed it all those years ago, going through a doctor to get hormonal birth control means that I have someone to troubleshoot with. Whereas if the pill were OTC, I would probably have picked the one with the best marketing, found it to be a bad option for me, and then dropped it when shit got bad. A woman who was less educated about the full range of contraceptive options might even think, “the pill is bad, I guess I just can’t use birth control.”
My own translation of “…but it’s bad to use it as birth control” is “I’m pro-choice but want to vote for McCain, so this is my way of rationalizing.”
and not to mention, STD preventing…
Yes, I get it: hormonal birth control involves hormones, and thus might mess with you. But I’m all for women getting their hands on it because many women need it and the over-the-counter avenue is best for that. All the other issues–pap tests, depression, annual exams, side effects, what have you–don’t overcome the number one issue I see which is that women who want this medicine have a barrier to its use.
The other issues regard medical access. We don’t have universal medical access, and maybe we never will. What we do have is a whole bunch of women who are too young, poor, or time-starved to see a doctor to get birth control. And I think it would be better that they get the pills they need (side effects and all) rather than have a bunch of women who are young, poor, or time-starved be stuck with unwanted children.
And since saying that they should use condoms is acceptable, maybe we can alleviate that whole abortion rights thing all together using that logic, no?
For whatever reason, Americans have trouble with self-prescribing medication. In Europe, you can get a remarkable array of pills over the counter, but for some reason, Americans just can’t handle the pressure. Already the number one problem with birth control pills is inconsistent use, which would be a much much greater problem if women didn’t have doctors supervising.
Women that really want to go on the pill, but cannot see a gynecologist or family doctor, may have access to a Planned Parenthood clinic or a campus health center. Some of these (please correct me if I’m wrong) will even offer the pill for free by giving out promotional samples. Plus, women get the benefit of speaking with an expert on how to take the pill and possible side effects.
I don’t quite get how you’re jumping to the conclusion that just because I suggest condoms as a quick, easy, safe and affordable solution to the pill barrier, that I’m against abortion rights. No. You couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m really for the safety of all women, whether they want an abortion (which I think should always be legal and easily accessible, no matter the circumstances), the pill, a pap smear, what have you. Besides, a woman taking the pill is probably not using condoms, and really needs to be screened for HPV and have that pap smear every single year, not to mention be checked for hidden problems such as blood clots.
Kyso K,
While I agree that the yearly pill scrip is a great carrot, I don’t think it’s a good enough justification. After all, women are not children.
Even if we assume that OTC Pill availability would lead to a marked decrease in the number of women getting a Pap, we would need to come up with better ways to motivate women to have an exam, as opposed to restricting the availability of a safe and effective drug just to insure compliance.
Broce,
There are a lot of people who have health issues that preclude using aspirin. To put it another way, if you knew an OTC drug would be quite dangerous for you to use, say because you’re 49 yo and smoke, would you use it just because it’s available OTC? Most likely, no.
Alara,
While you, regrettably, had a bad experience with the Pill, your argument is not supported.
For example, a study found no evidence that requiring a doctor’s visit to screen for contraindications to Pill use makes a difference: ~6% of Pill users in the U.S. are contraindicated for use vs. 6.7% of women who incorrectly self-identified as not contraindicated.
Finally, Kay, what Airina said. I’m afraid you’ve been taken in by the propaganda.
Briefly, first, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure excludes all medical abortions, all abortions as a result of rape and incest, and all elective abortions as a result of contraceptive failure (almost half of all abortions as a result of an unintended pregnancy).
Second, just because some women who are at risk of an unintended pregnancy do not use contraception and elect to terminate their pregnancy is neither 1) proof that they use abortion as birth control (a lot of these women think that they cannot get pregnant, for whatever reason), nor 2) a legitimate basis for crafting legislation.
Third, agreeing that it’s better not to get pregnant at all than to need an abortion does not signal agreement with the propaganda about use of abortion as a birth control method.
Yes, Mary. Everyone has access to a doctor, Planned Parenthood clinic, or a campus with a clinic. Sure. Right.
And no, I didn’t say you were against abortion, but the flippant “just use condoms” isn’t enough to stop all pregnancies because some people don’t like condoms in the same way that some people don’t like to use the pill. And some people are idiots with latex in the same way that some people are idiots who can’t understand that they should take a pill every day. And some people aren’t idiots, but still make mistakes.
I say give more people more options. The current system leaves the pill out of the mouths of many people, so I say fix that. The current system also makes health care a bitch, and I say fix that too. But I don’t care if making the pill over-the-counter is putting the cart goes before the horse or after the horse or whatever when there are too many people just plain getting on that horse and going for a ride.
On the other hand, my significant other has uncontrollable anger when she’s not on any pill at all, or on the wrong one. So it’s not like the default hormone configuration on everyone is safe in the first place. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the pill is always good; as you said, the wrong set of hormones can cause astonishing problems.
(If you’re interested, here’s a fascinating thread where the local commentariat argues against hormonal birth control. I suppose it’s well-known that this kind of thinking is out there, but it still surprises me whenever I look at it.)
Kyso K,
While I agree that the yearly pill scrip is a great carrot, I don’t think it’s a good enough justification.
Even if we assume that OTC Pill availability would lead to a marked decrease in the number of women getting a Pap, we would need to come up with better ways to motivate women to have an exam, as opposed to restricting the availability of a safe and effective drug just to insure compliance.
Broce,
There are a lot of people who have health issues that preclude using aspirin. To put it another way, if you knew an OTC drug would be quite dangerous for you to use, say because you’re 49 yo and smoke, would you use it just because it’s available OTC? Most likely, no.
Alara,
While you, regrettably, had a bad experience with the Pill, your argument is not supported.
For example, a study found no evidence that requiring a doctor’s visit to screen for contraindications to Pill use makes a difference: ~6% of Pill users in the U.S. are contraindicated for use vs. 6.7% of women who incorrectly self-identified as not contraindicated.
Finally, Kay, what Airina said. I’m afraid you’ve been taken in by the propaganda.
Briefly, first, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure excludes all medical abortions, all abortions as a result of rape and incest, and all elective abortions as a result of contraceptive failure (almost half of all abortions as a result of an unintended pregnancy).
Second, just because some women who are at risk of an unintended pregnancy do not use contraception and elect to terminate their pregnancy is neither 1) proof that they use abortion as birth control (a lot of these women think that they cannot get pregnant, for whatever reason), nor 2) a legitimate basis for crafting legislation.
Third, agreeing that it’s better not to get pregnant at all than to need an abortion does not signal agreement with the propaganda about use of abortion as a birth control method.
But I’m all for women getting their hands on it because many women need it and the over-the-counter avenue is best for that.
A lot of people need a lot of things that are medically complex and require the advice and intervention of a physician. Not all of those things should be available over the counter. That’s just the way it is.
If the ONLY contraceptive method that existed was the pill, it would be different. Actually, not really, but the political opinion that it should be some sort of “exception” would be a little more viable.
However, women who cannot get enough professional medical access to reliably use the pill can generally use condoms.
Also, if the main issue here is the women who fall through the cracks of Our Shitty Medical System, then the answer is to overhaul said system, not to start doling out dangerous medicines like candy just because men can’t be bothered to sack up and use a condom.
“just because men can’t be bothered to sack up and use a condom. ”
Condoms are expensive compared to the pill. At least, for me. I’m insured, so maybe I have a wrong idea here, but…
Many men can “be bothered to sack up and use a condom.” But again, some can’t be bothered to do it correctly, some can’t be bothered to use a condom every time, and some can’t be bothered at all. And some women can’t be fitted with a diaphragm or IUD or trusted to take a pill or an injection, either. There is no single solution, only many different obstacles for many different people. Some have big issues, some don’t. Some really shouldn’t be having sex at all, but good luck stopping them.
And in an ideal world, things are much better.
If you are insured, you are more likely to have access to a doctor who can prescribe the pill. In which case you are probably not one of those folks who “needs” it to be over the counter.
If you are not insured, condoms are both cheaper and easier to come by.
While you, regrettably, had a bad experience with the Pill, your argument is not supported.
For example, a study found no evidence that requiring a doctor’s visit to screen for contraindications to Pill use makes a difference: ~6% of Pill users in the U.S. are contraindicated for use vs. 6.7% of women who incorrectly self-identified as not contraindicated.
Hmm. Since this wasn’t the argument I was making at all, I fail to see that.
I am not contraindicated for taking The Pill. I do not smoke, I have no history of blood clots. However, the use of *some* pill formulations have made me suicidally depressed, and because I was not seeing a gynecologist regularly and my psychiatrist was apparently not trained in this issue, *I* had to figure out that they were related. I am a smart, educated layperson with a degree in psychobiology and a strong interest in medical issues that affect women, so I was, in fact, able to figure this out for myself. But I would not have been able to get advice on which pill to *switch* to in order to solve the problem if I wasn’t seeing a doctor for my prescriptions.
Your stat sounds like doctors are not doing their jobs, which sucks, of course, but isn’t an argument for *less* oversight by doctors, more an argument for “doctors should get their heads out of their asses.” And *my* issue wasn’t that I was contraindicated at all, but that I might have figured out that it was the Pill screwing me up if I’d been seeing a doctor after getting the script, and that advice from a doctor helped me in changing scripts.
I do wish that more people knew that nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants are perfectly qualified to prescribe you your Pill on the basis of a short interview. And I think it would be great if there was a readily available medical professional who was halfway between a pharmacist and a doctor — someone who will have an appointment with you, rather than someone you stand around at the counter with, who will advise you on the medical risks and interactions of *everything* you consume, and could screen you for contraindications for the Pill and then prescribe you one, but there’s one working at every pharmacy and your appointment could be “walk in, sit down and wait until two other people are done talking to the pharma-doctor-advisor person”, like appointments with bankers.
But as long as we don’t have such a person, if BC goes OTC people who shouldn’t take it will, people who shouldn’t take *that particular type* will, people who shouldn’t take that particular type will stop but then not take a different type, and people who should take it will take it badly. I really don’t approve of the whole “forcing you to get your Pap smear” thing, but I also notice that despite millennia of misogyny, despite *known* factors of doctors ignoring women’s complaints, we live longer than men because we see doctors more often. Could that be in part because so many of us have to see a doctor every year for our meds that “female culture” has normalized seeing the doctor in a way that “male culture” has not?
Jon, fwiw, your argument here seems to either just be fanciful b.s. just for the sake of killing time on the internet, or it boils down to “we should make the pill available OTC so I will never have to wear a condom again.”
There are a lot of reasons, outlined very well here, that the birth control pill is available only by prescription.
There is at least one extremely reliable, affordable, and easily obtained method of birth control available over the counter to people who do not have access to prescription drugs. It is called a condom. The vast majority of couples can use condoms safely and have easy access to them. Condoms are very easy to use correctly and consistently.
The only real obstacle to using condoms as your main method of contraception is the fact that a lot of douchey guys cop an attitude about it. And sorry, my friend, but “I think condoms are totes not fun at all!” is not really a recommendation for hormonal birth control to be over the counter.
Condoms should be another option, not the other option. And the good ones are expensive.
What, like the Pill is going to be cheap just because it’s OTC? Have you been in a drugstore lately?
What, you think the Pill will be cheap just because it’s OTC? Have you been in a drugstore lately?
If you think condoms are more expensive than an OTC birth control pill would be, you are not very bright.
Somebody help me here. I don’t hang around here as much as I used to - is Jon actually serious, or is he a troll trying to make some kind of obscure point?
A huge box of Trojans is quite likely cheaper than my $50 per month copay for my birth control pills. And I’m insured.
Word, Mary!
When I was on the pill, I was paying about $50 a month for the privilege. A box of Trojans is $22.29 at drugstore.com, for 36 condoms — if you have sex daily that’s about half what someone without insurance or with shitty insurance will pay for the pill.
I wonder if the supreme will deal with this one before election. That’ll be the biggest wedge issue ever.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2008/05/court_strikes_down_virginia_ab.html?hpid=topnews
Court Strikes Down Virginia Abortion Ban
A federal appeals court has ruled that Virginia’s ban on late-term abortions, approved by the General Assembly in 2003 over objections from then governor Mark R. Warner (D), is unconstitutional.
In a ruling issued this afternoon, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals said the procedures covered under Virginia’s ban “imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.”
The ruling will likely reignite the abortion debate in Virginia.
Supporters of Virginia’s ban say it would stop the practice of killing infants moments after they are prematurely delivered. But the 2003 Virginia law did not include a health exception. Warner vetoed the law, and the legislature overrode his veto.
My husband has never copped an attitude about using a condom. No complaints because he doesn’t want to be a dad.
I, OTOH, am bloody sick of the damn things. I don’t have health insurance, and frankly, I do resent the whole “carrot stick” approach to the pill. Yeah, condoms are easily available, but for someone in a long term, monogamous relationship, they suck. Eons ago, when I was in college, I was on the pill and it was great. Convenient. Spontaneous. And frankly, it leveled out my hormones and made me a bit saner.
I’d love the pill to be available OTC.
Just pointing out that support for the pill OTC isn’t just from lazy, “douchey” men with attitudes.
Seraph, I am a real person who is trying to make a serious point. I think condoms are okay, the pill should be more widely available, and both can help women avoid pregnancy. I also think that women (and men like myself) should actually push for more contraceptive choices in an era when abortion is legal, but threatened (you know, like all other times.) It would take the issue to the forefront, cause freaky Republicans to make stupid statements that show their true feelings toward women, and maybe, just maybe get some women to have more options in life. More sex without fear of pregnancy is a good thing, if you ask me. Those against? Vote for those dorks who make anti-woman statements. I’m sorry I brought something up that threadjacked things a bit (okay, a lot,) but I think reproductive freedom should be as individual a choice as possible, even if there are consequences (as there will be.)
And Opoponax, my insurance charges just $10 for prescriptions, so condoms would cost more. But I paid $0 for my vasectomy, so the whole thing is moot for me. My ex could have had her tubes tied for $0 as well, which shows how willing insurance companies are to not pay for pregnancy. Who’s making all that money on the pill?
target, walmart, and kroger all sell a month supply of generic ortho cyclen or ortho tri cyclen for $9 as an extension of their $4 generic drug programs.
everytime drug prices come up i feel compelled to post about these programs. so apologies to everyone who knew this info already. being unisurable due to chronic health and mental health issues these generic drug programs are a lifesaver. for my 3 prescriptions i pay $21 a month
but on the subject of the post itself, the little tagline “not just recently. always. never wavering.” sounds like a walmart ad. this guy is such a weenie.
and you can count me in the list of women who dont like condoms.
Jon, this is the part where I think you are either a troll or just enjoying the sound of your own voice (look of your own words? how does this expression work on the tubes?).
If you have health insurance, you will be able to go to your doctor and get a prescription for any kind of hormonal birth control your little heart desires. You don’t really need the pill to be available over the counter. In fact if your only cost is a $10 copay, you’d spend more on the OTC pill, because $10 is barely enough to buy aspirin these days.
If you don’t have health insurance, you have to pay full price, which means bearing the full cost of an annual well-woman exam and paying full price for the pills each month. This is a lot of money, but there’s no reason to think the price would go down if the pills were available over the counter — in fact, based on how the morning after pill went, the price would probably be jacked up to prevent 12 year olds from spending their allowance on it (don’t even get me STARTED…). At best they would ignore the cost of a doctor’s visit and “only” charge $50-60 per pack of pills.
Women who do not have access to hormonal birth control due to the prohibitive cost of getting it without health insurance would not be any more likely to afford it over the counter. They would still be stuck using condoms, because condoms are a lot cheaper than full-price birth control pills.
I should also say that, if we were living in a different universe where the pill were safe enough to be OTC, I would love to see it available that way. But I’d rather stick to condoms (which frankly bore me, too) than watch the fallout from something like that.
So you say, but then, a troll would. That’s why I’m asking the regular posters to identify you one way or another.
You see, you claim to be making a serious point, but when you brush off potentially deadly side effects like Alara’s suicidal depression or my wife’s dangerously high blood pressure with a casual
…you are not being serious. You are arguing in bad faith. You are not engaging with people offering valid criticisms of your argument, nor are you addressing the very real and serious drawbacks to your plan in any substantial way. You are simply repeating it over and over in the hopes that we’ll see it your way if you just say it right. Sorry, “see, I done proved it” never worked here.
The Pill is not a single drug. There are many different formulations, and they’re all very powerful, meant to be taken every day for years at a time. The wrong formulation can kill a woman, and the right formulation can change as a woman’s body and circumstances change.
The Pill is practically a textbook example for why prescriptions and professional medical supervision exist in the first place.
What’s more, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, making the Pill OTC wouldn’t necessarily improve availability and certainly wouldn’t improve cost.
And yet you ignore all of this, simply to repeat your argument yet again. This means you are either:
1) A troll trying to make a backdoor argument against the availability of Plan B OTC, or trying to get some nice “Just Use Condoms” quotes from the Pro-aborts
2) So utterly blinded by the magnificence of your idea that you honestly can’t see its flaws even when they’re pointed out to you, and so believe that everyone would agree with you if they really understood…so if they don’t agree, they must not understand…
or
3) Very stupid.
Which is it?
So you say, but then, a troll would. That’s why I’m asking the regular posters to identify you one way or another.
You see, you claim to be making a serious point, but when you brush off potentially deadly side effects like Alara’s suicidal depression or my wife’s dangerously high blood pressure with a casual
…you are not being serious. You are arguing in bad faith. You are not engaging with people offering valid criticisms of your argument, nor are you addressing the very real and serious drawbacks to your plan in any substantial way. You are simply repeating it over and over in the hopes that we’ll see it your way if you just say it right. Sorry, “see, I done proved it” never worked here.
The Pill is not a single drug. There are many different formulations, and they’re all very powerful, meant to be taken every day for years at a time. The wrong formulation can kill a woman, and the right formulation can change as a woman’s body and circumstances change.
The Pill is practically a textbook example for why prescriptions and professional medical supervision exist in the first place.
What’s more, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, making the Pill OTC wouldn’t necessarily improve availability and certainly wouldn’t improve cost.
And yet you ignore all of this, simply to repeat your argument yet again. This means you are either:
1) A troll trying to make a backdoor argument against the availability of Plan B OTC, or trying to get some nice “Just Use Condoms” quotes from the Pro-aborts
2) So utterly blinded by the magnificence of your idea that you honestly can’t see its flaws even when they’re pointed out to you, and so believe that everyone would agree with you if they really understood…so if they don’t agree, they must not understand…
or
3) Very stupid.
Which is it?
Bush Family Planning Appointee Who Called Contraceptives Part Of The ‘Culture Of Death’ Resigns
From the beginning, Orr was controversial, with her strongest credentials seemingly being her support for failed abstinence-only policies. Lawmakers immediately wrote to HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt and urged him to reconsider the appointment. Before joining HHS, Orr served as senior director for marriage and family care at the conservative Family Research Council (FRC) and was an adjunct professor at Pat Robertson’s Regent University. A look at her past record:
– In a 2001, Orr embraced a Bush administration proposal to “stop requiring all health insurance plans for federal employees” to cover a broad range of birth control. “We’re quite pleased, because fertility is not a disease,” said Orr.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/21/orr-resign/