Posted on 03/25/2014 9:25:09 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Barbara Boxer: Why no Viagra complaints? By: Tal Kopan March 25, 2014 11:28 AM EDT
As the Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday about the Obamacare mandate on birth control coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer questioned why those up in arms about the requirement have no problem with most insurance covering Viagra.
“I have never heard Hobby Lobby or any other corporation, I could be wrong, or any other boss complain that Viagra is covered in many insurance plans, practically all of them, or other kinds of things, you know, for men, which I won’t go into,” Boxer said Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Jansing & Co.”
The California Democrat was discussing the lawsuit before the Supreme Court Tuesday morning arguing that companies like Hobby Lobby, which brought the suit, shouldn’t have to provide for employees’ birth control because it violates their religious beliefs.
Host Chris Jansing pressed Boxer as to whether she could compare Viagra and birth control, saying Hobby Lobby and other advocates argue that birth control is a “life issue.”
“I have never heard them put any type of moral objection, remember, this is a moral objection, to men getting Viagra, but they have a moral objection to women getting certain types of birth control,” Boxer said. “What’s their next moral objection, do they then object to vaccinations? Where do you take it from here? … There has been a well-documented study by a university that gave women free birth control for several years. Abortions went down by 50 percent, Chris. So if you are for life and want to attack this issue for abortion, this is a place we could work together and reduce the number of abortions.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Anything beyond 2 hours is just showboating.
:)
I do not want to think of women on that filling the streets to take advantage of defenseless men. I’d go blind.
Viagra is medicine for a serious condition, the inability to have sex, it isn’t an aphrodisiac, or a sex ointment, or sex toy to enhance sex, or to improve sex, or to make it more frequent, but simply to make the body part be able to function. Viagra is medicine, but since it is related to a man’s penis, people just can’t treat it as medicine, it always has to be a sex joke, or in this case, wrap it up in sexist male sexuality, condoms and birth control are an entirely different area.
So to this fools eyes, aiding in the potential creating of life is equivalent to aiding in the willful destruction of life...... Interesting
Yes? How does it do this rather than simply prevent implantation?
Oh please. Erectile dysfunction drugs are meant to correct a medical or physical condition that prevents normal function. Birth control drugs are meant to disrupt normal function. How hard it that to understand?
Boxer is hoping for a miracle drug maybe a Viagra/LSD combo so someone might go for her...
I don't care who you are...that's funny!
Viagra has probably killed more old geezers than it's saved.
http://www.kirotv.com/news/news/man-abuses-erection-drug-has-penis-amputed/nZ4pZ/
a huge smile would be a dead giveaway.
That would be one very LARGE pill.
More like $7.50
We are talking about procreative health here. It is after all the reason for a marriage between a man and a woman is it not? If not then maybe we have a bigger problem than many think.
No one objects to covering pharmaceutical treatments for female sexual dysfunction either, and the same folks who object to covering hormonal contraceptives for women also object to covering condoms and will object to covering a pharmaceutical contraceptive administered to men should one ever be developed.
Boxer is an idiot, though she’s not the first I’ve heard this nonsense from. I’m not sure where the meme of equating hormonal contraceptives with treatments for male sexual dysfunction came from, but it seems to have surprising currency among the less thoughtful. (And, yes, I used meme deliberately — it fits here: an idea-like thing that spreads linguistically, but has no actual content.)
viagra’s purpose into to murder a preborn baby, or anyone for that matter.
further women are also beneficiaries of a guy taking viagra as well.
what do we expect for a stupidcomparison, coming from barbie bobby-soxer?
Amazing the ignorance on the left... geezers!!
because the GOV is not requiring insurance to cover Viagra.
The reasons why insurance companies are interested in paying for either vasectomies or abortions is that they represent stop-losses.
From an actuarial standpoint, its in their financial interest to cover them.
To the extent that abortions are not covered, it is because it is essentially licensed infanticide and brings a fresh set of financial risks that are not necessarily medical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.