<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Another Round &#187; sexuality</title>
	<atom:link href="http://another-round.net/tag/sexuality/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://another-round.net</link>
	<description>Escapades of a Peripatetic Anti-Soccer Mom</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:15:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>My body is not a lightning rod</title>
		<link>http://another-round.net/2009/11/17/my-body-is-not-a-lightning-rod/</link>
		<comments>http://another-round.net/2009/11/17/my-body-is-not-a-lightning-rod/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Leah</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[healthcare]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexuality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://another-round.net/?p=153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Nation&#8217;s health care policy blog recently pointed out the shocking fact that affordable coverage for comprehensive women&#8217;s reproductive health care is completely absent from both the House and Senate versions of Health Care Reform. That&#8217;s right. Not pared-down or buried beneath legislative double-speak. Absent.
To understand what I mean by this, and why I&#8217;m so [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a title="Where's the Birth Control?" href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091116/lerner" target="_blank">The Nation&#8217;s health care policy blog</a> recently pointed out the shocking fact that affordable coverage for comprehensive women&#8217;s reproductive health care is completely <strong>absent</strong> from both the House and Senate versions of Health Care Reform. That&#8217;s right. Not pared-down or buried beneath legislative double-speak. Absent.</p>
<p>To understand what I mean by this, and why I&#8217;m so angry about it, you need to understand the concept of cost-sharing. Cost-sharing is a fancy way of describing the co-pays, coinsurance and deductibles that policy holders are liable for when they seek medical care. Different types of plans have different types of cost-sharing.</p>
<p>Both versions of the legislation contain language exempting certain services from cost-sharing. Among them:</p>
<ul>
<li>maternity care</li>
<li>newborn care</li>
<li>pediatric vision and dental care</li>
</ul>
<p>Pap smears and mammograms are also provided for in the legislation.</p>
<p>If the bills passed today and went through reconciliation with this language intact, insurers would be required to provide those services at no additional cost to the policy-holder. In other words, if you get pregnant and have a baby under this proposed legislation, your insurer could not charge you a dime beyond your basic premium.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s great, right? What a step forward for women!!</p>
<p>Yeah&#8230;not so much. Because markedly absent from the list of protected services are:</p>
<ul>
<li>birth control counseling</li>
<li>birth control procedures (such as IUD insertion, tubal ligation, etc.)</li>
<li>pelvic exams</li>
<li>STD screenings.</li>
</ul>
<p>Congress is essentially saying that if you&#8217;re procreating, we&#8217;ll take care of you. If you&#8217;re having sex for any other reason, you&#8217;re shit out of luck unless you have the money to pay for reproductive health services out of pocket. It&#8217;s a legislative version of the old Madonna/whore complex. Tut, tut, says Congress. Don&#8217;t you know that sex is for making babies, you unrepentant whores? If you&#8217;d just keep your legs shut, you wouldn&#8217;t need those services anyway.</p>
<p>Congress can kiss my ass, because that isn&#8217;t reform. It&#8217;s a sick joke that&#8217;s going to continue to doom hundreds of thousands of women to sub-standard health care. Women who are going to die from cancer, become infertile from undiagnosed STDs, or *god forbid* women who are going to add to the abortion rate because they didn&#8217;t have access to affordable reproductive health care.</p>
<p>The article rightly points out that Congress can&#8217;t cater to every special interest group in crafting this legislation and I get that. However, 50% of the population is not a special interest group. We deserve to be heard over the braying cacophony of the hard-right wingers.</p>
<p>More importantly, we deserve to be treated with respect by the growing group of so-called Democrats in Congress who refuse to go to bat for anything involving the word &#8220;reproductive&#8221; because &#8220;women&#8217;s bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.&#8221; That kind of chicken-shit defection from traditional Democratic values makes me even more angry than the Republican asshattery, because at least that, I&#8217;ve come to expect.</p>
<p>The Senate is now considering their version of the legislation and eventually will have to reconcile their bill with the House. Contacting your representative won&#8217;t do much good at this point, so I suggest you <a title="Contact Your Senator" href="http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm" target="_blank">contact your Senator about this</a>. You can be sure I have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://another-round.net/2009/11/17/my-body-is-not-a-lightning-rod/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
