Paps and Mammos at Walgreens!
Comments
-
WR -- From broken wings to broomsticks. It ill behooves anyone to forget that. And here's a more prosaic one that seems to fit the bill: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
What I see from my safe distance is that there is one heck of a lot of scorning of women and women's bodies and women's health and women's rights going on. It scares me because I surely don't want any of that trickling across the border.
-
Unfortunately, it's not just men who think they are entitled to free entry into the body of every woman alive.
I've gotten notes in the background from women here who think they are the proper judges of what other women do and they have every intention of making themselves the arbiters of what any woman should be permitted to do by law or what every woman should be prosecuted for doing.
It's vicious. It's bad enough that men think themselves entitled to tell women what they can and cannot do. It's worse -- far worse -- when women think they, the self-appointed holier than thou and all others, are entitled to do to other women. They say they get their marching orders from one sky fairy or other but something tells me their particularly chosen sky fairy always and unfailingly agrees with whatever judgments they arrive at when handing down their pronouncements and accusations and assumptions.
Having fought the battle to end the war of the suppression of women years ago, it never occurred to me that there would come a time when it would have to be fought all over again. And it certainly never occurred to me that the front line on the other side would be widely populated by women!
-
At what point in our history did the federal government get the authority to force states to financially support specific charities? By insisting that Texas MUST fund Planned Parenthood or lose the federal funding for the Medicaid Women's Health Program, that is what they are doing.
Why can't Texas choose to contract with hospitals and other local clinics to provide those services? Is there some magical power that Planned Parenthood has that no other provider has?
I understand that people feel passionately about Planned Parenthood, either for or against. At no time did Planned Parenthood become an arm of the government with guaranteed government funding. They are a charity, and if anyone feels that Planned Parenthood needs more funding, they are free and welcome to provide that funding in the form of donations, and so are each of you who are up in arms that Texas would dare to not fund that charity. Planned Parenthood has recently demonstrated that they are fully capable of whipping up their support base to provide additional funding for worthwhile services such as cancer screening.
I don't believe that Walgreens, or CVS provide pap smears or mammograms, but you can get a basic physical at some of their locations. Should we insist that the government fund those clinics? They wouldn't exist if they weren't profitable, so they'll probably go on even without government funding.
It is NOT shameful that many people choose not to use or support Planned Parenthood. That is their right. It is hurtful to attempt to shame women on this board for holding opinions different than your own.
-
I preface this by saying that I haven't yet read the link about Texas. That being said, I see you as arguing a different point PatMom. Surely from the purpose and perspective of beginning and continuing in the discussion. As I understand Pompeed's post, she's arguing the same.
The issue at hand is what could be at stake for ANY woman. First and foremost every human being has individual rights. By virtue of being born female, that very basic human right is being threatened. The very vast majority of those that threaten us are men. As we cannot possibly relate to the experience of being a male, so it goes for them. How any woman would allow someone with NO knowledge or experience owning a female reproductive system could possibly condone any man dictating what you do with it. That is the unfathomable question I see as the issue.
Separation of church and state is not being practiced by those who propose to govern women. It's not about pro life or Planned Parenthood or government funding. It's about being human.
-
Hey, I'm a slut. How about you?
-
PatMom - right now I wish there was a LIKE button on posts here. I would be pushing it very readily for the last post you made. I think very alike! Very well stated!
-
When you put your hand out and ask for someone else to pay for something for you, if they say no, they say no. That doesn't make them cruel, or unfair or vicious.
Wasn't the whole point of the feminist movement to give women the power to be independent? What is wrong with expecting those strong, independent women who are in control of their own destiny to pay for their own birth control? Why would anyone expect to be respected as independent as they have their hand out asking for freebies?
Nothing sets the gains of feminism back further than women demeaning themselves by insisting that they are owed things by men, and if they don't get them to throw a hissy fit.
It's really simple, if you want to use birth control, pay for it yourself. If you are moved by the plight of someone not financially able to pay for her own birth control, then you are free to pay for it, or to donate to a charity that pays for it. People are legally allowed to smoke and drink, but no one expects the government to pick up the tab do they?
The separation of church and state comes into the equation with the government forcing religious institutions to pay for something that goes against the tenets of their faith. That is a violation of the Constitution. Not some law written a decade or two ago, but the basic framework of the US Government.
-
It's not just Planned Parenthood that is under attack.
Trying not to get political here but take a good look at what Arizona just did. A doctor cannot be sued for not telling a pregnant woman of a fetal defect he is aware of ... even if the condition could result in her death.
Legislatures should not be practicing medicine. And the truth is that they are not attempting to practice medicine on men ... only on woman. We are not stupid and we can see what is right in front of our faces.
Texas can fund whatever or not. But the Medicaid Women's Health Program no doubt has a list of approved service providers and if Texas does not currently have other approved providers they won't be eligible for the funds. If they want to stop using PP facilities and still get the funds they need to set up agreements and get approval for new providers. The fact that they have not done that in advance speaks volumes to me about the priority they place on women's health services.
Those who are doing such things have no cause to complain if women get angry and protest and refuse to vote for them any longer.
-
Just some historical facts -- both the U.S. government and the State of Texas supported the growth of Planned Parenthood throughout Texas, particularly in the 1960s:
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/vib02The State of Texas and Federal funds support many faith-based charities in Texas: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/chchoice.html#charitablechoicebasics
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/svcs/charchoice/chchoice.html#texaslegislationTherefore, to suddenly withdraw funding from a non-faith-based organization (PP) that in the past has been encouraged and supported by the State and Federal governments, that has fulfilled its funding obligations, that provides needed services, that doesn't even provide abortions in Texas (although that would be legal) -- well, it seems like a case of "establishment of religion." At the very least, a "weaning off" of funding would seem more appropriate.
Certainly, PP is not "an arm of the government" -- but I thought conservatives felt government wasn't good at running things? And that therefore some services are contracted out to charities and community-based organizations? Oh well.
I would finally just note that the "whipping up of the support base" really wasn't done by Planned Parenthood! The Komen defunding news did that all on its own -- the emergency funding response really was a heartfelt grass-roots movement! Including lots of people who had raised a lot of money for Komen. Those people pay taxes too, and perhaps believe that health services purchased with their taxes might properly be provided at PP clinics in addition to faith-based initiatives.
-
"It's really simple, if you want to use birth control, pay for it yourself"
This would be fine if the same standard was applied to other medical needs and prescription drugs. But vasectomies and ED drugs are the most similar and they are covered by insurance. Health insurance is not a 'freebie' and the woman who is paying a premium is being discriminated against in this instance. Others needs are covered ... hers are not.
-
I am so sorry that this is happening.
Like so many others, I went to Planned Parenthood as an impoverished grad student. In many respects, it was the best gyn services I ever had - patient, compassionate, everything you would ever want.
I guess I don't understand. And I never will.
Destroy services for poor women, let them die of unnecessary cancers, all because you want to score political points
It seems so unfair that the great state of Texas can still find money to preach abstinence education (yeah, like that works), but lets women die. -
Usually sterilization is covered under major medical whether it is vasectomies or tubal litigation...or hysterectomies.............
"Birth Control for the most part is not......whether it is condoms or the "pill" or even IUD's.......even though the "procedure" to insert may be covered usually the actual device is not......
Now if you do have major medical and you want birth control coverage you can usually have it added to your policy for a fee........but considering birth control in the last few years has become so inexpensive it usually is either a wash or maybe even a little cheaper to purchase it outside of your health coverage especially if you have daughters because the insurance company must carry the birth control for all females on the policy.........
As far as the "boner" pills I happen to agree unless they are being used for another medical condition........
shokk
-
I'm not an expert on insurance, however, if insurance doesn't cover what I want it to, can't I simple go shopping for different or better insurance that covers what I want it to? Or buy a supplemental policy which covers where the other lacks?
-
I like Fox, in a Democracy we can chose; when I want more information do not watch the liberal networks in the US, I watch foreign ones, this way many times I see news that take days if ever to show in the networks.
Community clinics are the ones where PP usually refer women, also there are non profit ones that women pay based on a scale.
There was a time that mammograms were not done by certified personal, NBCC and the activists made sure not only to have certifications but that the equipment is certified.
Now I also have seen register RN that are opening offices for simple exams.
I think what happen with Komen was an eye opening, this way pro life we can give somewhere else, to community clinics for example, and pro abortion can continue with Komen.
-
I have read this whole thread but the heading is what caught my eye. My local Walgreens has a large drive through prescription window. I immediately got the giggles just imagining drive through paps and mammos! The various ways in which this could be achieved eventually had me rolling on the floor.
Caryn -
Cycle-path .. that video cracked me up!
exbrnxgrl .. I love your description of the drive-up window at Walgreens ... made me giggle too.
Bren
-
I haven't heard the insurance companies complaining a bit about covering birth control. Why should they ... it is much cheaper for them than unplanned pregnancies. It's been politicians and religious factions that are interferring in the market with their objections.
exbrnxgrl ... LOL
-
Rabbit .. I'm looking for that "like" button.
Bren
-
It really isn't a matter of "complaining"..........it is just a matter of Policy.......
And I know logically you would think that covering pregnancy would be much more of an expense then covering the cost of "the pill".....(the most popular form of birth control)......for the Insurance Companies but this has been standard practice for years......
In most Major Medical Insurance Policies birth control is not covered.........in fact it is much more uncommon to find a Insurance Policy where birth control is standard then not...........
and there have been studies done which Insurance Companies do all the time.......there doesn't seem to be a difference between polices where birth control is covered and in which birth control is not covered.......the amount of pregnancies are pretty much the same........in both groups......
shokk
-
Actually, prescription medication in general is not covered by medical insurance. Many people have a SEPARATE prescription plan that covers prescriptions. Perhaps that is why the birth control PILL has not been covered by medical insurance, but surgical sterilization like vasectomy has been.
-
Pat that is exactly how it works for most insurance.......except even under the prescription plan most polices don't cover "birth control".........I personally have found dealing with the prescription end of medical coverage is more difficult then with Major Medical........you just never know when they might decide not cover a certain prescription...........
shokk
-
My insurance covers prescriptions.
ETA: Drive-thru paps. that makes me giggle. Maybe a mammo machine by the Redbox and propane tanks?
-
Faye, it's clear you are not an expert on insurance. Good luck "shopping around" for a comprehensive, affordable insurance plan, particularly if you have anything that falls under the rubric of Prexisting condition, which may include everything from, oh, bc to allergies to tricky knees to a few extra pounds. The market for individual policies is a nightmare. Have you seen the prices and conditions of these policies? No wonder so many go without.
As for the right to fund or not, thats not really the issue being addressed. The issue is the political games behind texas's decision, which uses women's health as a paWn in the most depraved, cynical way. -
Many men can go years or decades without seeing a doctor. The main screening they need is for blood pressure which CAN be done at Walgreens, and many other places, for free. Women need regular screening for cervical cancer as soon as they are sexually active. Birth control is essential for most of us.
Later in life, screening for prostate cancer for men involves a simple blood test and a quick exam they like to bitch about. Screening for breast cancer is more expensive and complex. We have men with very simple medical needs trying to control access to screenings that are necessary, and possibly life saving, for women throughout their lives.
We are losing the independence and respect we gained over the years and it is very disturbing.
-
Another woman of 60 and the 60's.
Here we are 40+ years later and the angry little men are still at it. It's about control and power and mostly fear. Foxnews plays those fears like a Stradivarius. -
I think I resent the words "pro-abortion" a lot.
I certainly don't believe that even women who have had abortions are particularly pro-abortion. The stories I read mostly say they are sad, but that the procedure was necessary.What I AM is pro-choice - as in, I am not in the business of telling any other women in this country what to do with their body.
And Planned Parenthood is the only source of gyn services for something like 80% of all poor women - if you choose to support other clinics, that's great. But don't assume that they are providing sliding scale services that others need.
Chickadee - I really like "A woman of 60 and the 60s." Jeesh, I thought we fought this battle already. -
Anyone here from Nebraska? Wondering what you think of this "Freedom of Conscience" proposed amendment?
According to The Omaha World Herald,“Under the amendment, health care providers could refuse to participate in any way, including providing referrals, in any type of health care or research that violates their religious, moral or ethical beliefs. Providers would be defined to include any employee of a health care facility, as well as students and a list of specific licensed professionals. It also would include health care facilities. Providers citing their conscience could not be disciplined, sued or discriminated against, including being moved to a different shift. The amendment bars consideration of whether an employee’s refusal creates an undue burden or hardship. Nor does it provide an exception for medical emergencies.”This conscience clause would basically allow doctors to ignore women who need an emergency abortion to save their lives, just because they oppose the procedure on religious grounds. Doctors could also refuse to prescribe birth control and handle other medical services. And doctors could refuse to refer patients to other doctors who would provide care. The same goes for pharmacists too. They can refuse to fill contraception prescriptions and then refuse to refer women to other pharmacies.
-
lindasa, IIRC, similar bills in other states required referrals to other providers that could offer the needed service(s). I don't know what the outcome is of legal challenges that were mounted against similar measures elsewhere.
What I think of such measures would probably get this thread shut down. Suffice it to say, it's a slippery slope. What about those who object to customers who are single parents, LGBT , interracial couples, etc. I as an animal rights activist could refuse to distribute medicine that was tested on animals, or refuse to participate in research that uses animals and not have any consequences. All sorts of services could be legally denied under these broad "conscience" measures.
If you don't want to distribute BC, you should not be a pharmacist (or get licensed as such).
-
Sue, so did I.
-
Wow, for people so concerned about not allowing anyone else's moral code to affect a woman seeking an abortion, you seem to have no such generosity of spirit toward medical providers.
A woman seeking an abortion has recently knowingly participated in activity resulting in that pregnancy that she seeks to abort.
A doctor, or a nurse, or a pharmacist made a career choice perhaps decades ago when participating in an abortion may not have even been an anticipated part of that career, and your caviler solution is that the professional should give up their career rather than be permitted to follow their conscience.
That attitude is not pro-choice. Pro-abortion perhaps, but not pro-choice which implies that everyone has a choice, not just the woman who always had the choice to take different actions and prevent the pregnancy in the first place.
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team