[Vision2020] Birth Control

[lfalen]

Saundra
I pay over $50 for my prescriptions in addition to my insurance premiums. I pay $66.33 to the University for Plan D and Dental. I pay $104 to Medicare per month. My wife pays into UI Insurance. She recently fell hit her head and was knocked unconscious. She paid over $600 for a CAT scan and other tests. We are still paying on a Gritman bill from several years ago. We are not that much above the poverty level. I do not think $50 is excessive. If they are below the poverty level they can get help from Medicaid and Planed Parenthood.  Nobody is having their religious freedom and Constitutional protections taken away.
Roger






-----Original Message-----
From: "Saundra Lund" <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
To: "vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Date: 07/14/14 21:19
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Birth Control

 Written by yet another fat white male steeped in unearned privilege with a tired old twist:  he thinks it's his place to tell the rest of us what the "real issues of the day" are.
 
Bully for him that he thinks birth control pills are cheap at $50/month.  That may be the case with the entitled group he runs with, but it certainly isn't the case for many, many women for whom $50/month may as well be $500/month.
 
Somehow, I doubt he'd be so dismissive of the concerns of the many were it his religious freedom and Constitutional protections that were being taken away.
 
 

 
 
 
Saundra
Moscow, ID
 
Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.
~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
 
 
From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2014 6:52 PM
To: lfalen
Cc: vision 2020
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Birth Control
 
Courtesy of the July 12, 2014 edition of the Moscow-Pullman Daily News.
 
------------------------------------
 
Reality-Based LeftyHis View: Don't fall for the distraction
By Chuck Pezeshki
It's not about the money.
It's about sending a message.
- The Joker from
"The Dark Knight"
It's only been two weeks since the Supreme Court decided against the federal government and upheld the notion that Hobby Lobby has a right to deny its employees birth control under the Affordable Care Act. The stated reason is because the company owners say certain types of birth control are basically monthly abortions, and since the owners are against abortions, they cannot, in good moral conscience, allow their employees access to these methods.
There are multiple levels of the implications of the court's decision that one could unpack. For example, are the methods of birth control (IUDs and certain types of pills, for example) abortifacient? The federal government says pregnancy begins with conception and attachment of the egg to the uterine lining. Many religious conservatives maintain pregnancy begins with conception. Therefore, drugs that prevent attachment are not causing abortions under federal definition, but are causing abortions under the religious definition. Who gets to control language?
The more salient point is this: How does a company, which is a protected entity, get to have religious beliefs? And if this is the case, how does a government enforce any law that a corporation doesn't like? Belief does not require proof - only a declaration of faith. And that can't be argued.
The whole issue of women having access to modern contraception is arguably at least 100 years old. And the fact that we are arguing about essentially a 100-year-old issue does not bode well for our nation.
First off, it is absolutely true that if Hobby Lobby's female employees don't have access to all types of birth control, the world is not going to end. There will be plenty of outside providers, such as Planned Parenthood, that will take up the slack. Birth control pills have been actively discussed as a drug to move to the non-prescription aisle in the pharmacy. And they're cheap.
But the Hobby Lobby attack does take up oxygen from all progressive issues. Because the attack is what psychologists call a "boundary violation" - an intrusion into a personal space where previously half our society felt marginally safe - it triggers an exaggerated response that distracts from focusing on the real issues of the day. Banking reform, underemployment, global warming, mountaintop removal coal mining and going back to war in the Middle East, to name just a few. These are issues with real teeth and real effect. And while we're screaming at each other about birth control, so cleverly launched at the core of our persons, we're letting the clock run on things that profoundly compromise the future of our children and the planet.
Here's a thought. Look at what other activists on the "physical impact" issues are doing this week. For example, my friend Mike Roselle, of Climate Ground Zero, and two friends are back in Charleston, W.V., doing a Fast for the Mountains against mountaintop removal coal mining. Their incredible efforts, including non-violent civil disobedience, have drawn large attention to the issue, and legislation continues to move to ban this literally Earth-shattering practice.
Women and men who care about the Hobby Lobby decision and think it's a pivotal moment in our history need to do the same. Get out in the streets. Organize your own protest. It may not change Hobby Lobby's mind, but what it will do is send a powerful message to all employers that this behavior is not going to do much for productivity.
And if protest is not your style, then realize that this decision, more than anything else, whether implicit, or by explicit direction, is a boundary violation, and designed to distract from the real issues with concrete impacts now. Don't let them do it to you.
Because it's not about the money.
 
 
 
------------------------------------
Seeya 'round town, Moscow, because . . .



"Moscow Cares" (the most fun you can have with your pants on)
http://www.MoscowCares.com
  
Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho
 



"There's room at the top they are telling you still.
But first you must learn how to smile as you kill,
If you want to be like the folks on the hill."



- John Lennon
  
 

On Jul 14, 2014, at 5:54 PM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:

 
Read Chuck Pezeshki's (Reality-based Lefty) column in the July 12,13 issue of the Daily New. While I do not exactly agree with his list of higher priorities, his comments on birth control are close to what I have been saying. Some one who knows how might want to post his column to Vision2020.
Roger
 
 
 

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
         mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
 
 
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140715/ff50f890/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 36125 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20140715/ff50f890/image003-0001.jpg>