I already mentioned this in the College Co-Eds debate, but motherfucking gods this is fucked up. Even if you’re against abortion, how can you not be absolutely OUTRAGED by this? I guess it makes sense, though – if you’re dumb enough to think abstinence-only education works, then why would anyone even need contraception? (except for maybe a few women with killer cramps, but they’re probably secretly whores anyway)
Worst. President. Ever.
He can sure pick 'em.
Might one of the testosterone-impaired inquire as to what contraception has to do with “killer cramps”? Does sex relieve such?
If that is the case, please be assured that I speak for my brethren in volunteering ourselves, if stern duty demands.
He’s still not quite as bad as Buchanan.
So, hey, there’s only 40 guys ahead of him.
Sex could relieve them, but the Pill is usually prescribed. 
Oral contraceptives are sometimes prescribed for some forms of “dysmenorrhea”, i.e., extremely heavy periods and/or severely painful menstrual cramps. Even if you don’t use the hormone pills for birth control, they tend to make menstrual periods more stable and mild for many women.
It varies from individual to individual, but yes, in many cases sex does ease the pain of menstrual cramps.
But it can be rather, um, messy, so you and your brethren might want to bear that in mind before deciding to volunteer. 
But…Conservatives keep reassuring us that they really support women. :mad:
They do. They just don’t support whores. See the distinction?
Good God, I hate to even imagine what my life would have been like from age 18 to age 40 if I hadn’t been able to take birth control pills to relieve painful cramps and short menstrual cycles.
I like that she’s a foe. More political appointments should go to supervillains.
“Hahahaha! Whimper beneath the mighty boots of Abstinencia!”
“Not so fast, evildoer! Birth Control Man (and his ever-ready sidekick Rubber Johnny) shall foil your despicable plans!”
I dunno. She’s against requiring insurance companies to pay for birth control. That’s not being against birth control. I don’t understand why insurance should cover something that pretty much every woman is going to use. In cases where they are prescribed for an actual illness, yes.
Now, it certainly makes sense for insurance companies to provide BC pills if they are going to pay for maternity costs. But that should be up to the insurance company, not the government. And it might be that this woman is a “birth control foe”, but the article in the OP doesn’t support that claim.
Imposing morality on people is all well and good. But not when it’s an issue of corporate profits.
It needn’t be a matter of morality. Insurance is something you have to pay for the unexpected. For most women, using birth control is as expected as taking a shower every day.
So, insurance shouldn’t cover medications if you know you’re going to need them? Interesting.
(This quote is “as is”, lifted from ThinkProgress’ discussion of her. No link is provided. You are welcome to disdain the source, if you see fit, pending someone who wants to go digging in the Weekly Standard archives. I pass…)
I’m confused by your use of “expected.” A person with a chronic illness can expect to take medication regularly. I don’t have a problem with insurance not paying for birth control on the basis that it has nothing to do with treating an illness or condition, and is entirely voluntary/not medically indicated.*
*Unless, of course, it IS being used to treat an illness or condition, and therefore is medically indicated (such as for the afore-mentioned cramps), in which case, insurance should pay for it like any other medication.
ETA: Of course, there’s also the POV that insurance shouldn’t pay for “routine” medical care, which may be what you’re getting at, here?
If the whole issue of her appointment is whether or not she opposes such payments, then its a pretty small beer. The larger question of her attitude towards contraception in general is not. What I would expect from the Bushiviks is a cramped and puritanical attitude, and the surface impression does nothing to dissuade. I think this approach to sexual/contraceptive issues is at best counterproductive, even destructive.
I remain open to evidence that such is not the case.
“Expected” in the sense that the vast majority of women who are sexually active use some sort of birth control. Insurance companies need to decide whether it’s more cost effective to pay for birth control or to pay for unexpected maternity costs (assuming they pay for the latter). But frankly, I expect most women (or couples) will pony up and pay for their own birth control expenses. I would consider that just one of many normal expenses that pretty much every adult has. Insurance shouldn’t pay for those types of things.
Do check-ups count? Pap smears? Mammograms? Most women get them yearly, albeit voluntarily. I’d lump birth control in the same group as preventive care.