The reproductive health should read "Women's reproductive health" because they aren't regulating or trying to regulate men's reproductive health in any way.
Condoms can still be bought over the counter with a bit of embarrassment though. No one is stopping anyone from getting them.
I googled Vasalgel, and it is very interesting, but hasn't made it to human clinical trials yet. It looks like the hiatus is due to their lack of funding.
..the same thing for the female condom, diaphrams, sponges... And even though the pill and IUD require medical approval, for the most part, that's pretty quick and painless as well, and represents a major effort on the behalf of clinics around the US.
But watch... if they do talk about taking away birth control, condoms will be on that list...
As for Vasalgel (and the various variations there are of it)... exactly. No money. Who are the monied interests in the US? Who would make the profit (and therefore, is choosing to *not* fund it)? And which ideology would prefer that men have no choice in the matter? Cheap, easy, very effective birth control that lasts a decade?
I think the reason it lacks monetary support is because it doesn't seem profitable. Even though it is an amazing idea.
As for the other it really hasn't happened yet so why are we talking about it? To be honest they haven't taken away female birth control options either, just made them more expensive because not everyone has them covered by insurance anymore.
Abortion is the thing that is being regulated. That is specifically a female oriented reproductive health procedure.
To which I agree, though the whole birth control thing makes the rounds in congress every few years. It doesn't go anywhere (thank god) but it's still lurking out there.
Every now and then, you see a post like "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal and birth control free!" which seems to be more then a bit hyperbolic. I have no doubt that abortion criminalization is all about controlling women. But I doubt that it would be legal if men could get pregnant. They'd just outlaw abortion and make child-support laws even more draconian.
It still doesn't make much sense. I know what people are trying to say with that kind of statement. I just don't think it would actually work the way they think it would except maybe in a comedy sketch.
Have you ever carried a child to term? That last month alone, plus childbirth, no normal man could ever stand. We're talking about creatures that scream in pain from a minor scratch.
Yeath, it's an amazing thing. Owsley County in Kentucky is 99.22% white and 95% Republican, yet they have the highest number of food stamp recipients in the country. Wonder how they'd actually feel if the government shut down?
no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 11:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 07:05 am (UTC)Then there is things like Vasalgel and the like, which have been put in semi-permanent hiatus in the US.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 02:59 pm (UTC)I googled Vasalgel, and it is very interesting, but hasn't made it to human clinical trials yet. It looks like the hiatus is due to their lack of funding.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 05:52 pm (UTC)But watch... if they do talk about taking away birth control, condoms will be on that list...
As for Vasalgel (and the various variations there are of it)... exactly. No money. Who are the monied interests in the US? Who would make the profit (and therefore, is choosing to *not* fund it)? And which ideology would prefer that men have no choice in the matter? Cheap, easy, very effective birth control that lasts a decade?
no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 06:54 pm (UTC)As for the other it really hasn't happened yet so why are we talking about it? To be honest they haven't taken away female birth control options either, just made them more expensive because not everyone has them covered by insurance anymore.
Abortion is the thing that is being regulated. That is specifically a female oriented reproductive health procedure.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-01 07:48 pm (UTC)Every now and then, you see a post like "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal and birth control free!" which seems to be more then a bit hyperbolic. I have no doubt that abortion criminalization is all about controlling women. But I doubt that it would be legal if men could get pregnant. They'd just outlaw abortion and make child-support laws even more draconian.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 03:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 08:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 08:48 pm (UTC)It still doesn't make much sense. I know what people are trying to say with that kind of statement. I just don't think it would actually work the way they think it would except maybe in a comedy sketch.
no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 09:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 12:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 11:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 01:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 03:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 06:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 06:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 08:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 11:25 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 11:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-29 12:51 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 08:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-02 09:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-09-03 09:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-28 11:59 pm (UTC)