P. Murray: Government intrusion

Hypocrisy in the party-of-less-government has reached new heights. Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate want to restrict a woman’s access to contraceptives, thus legislating the timing and size of families.

Rick Santorum supports the bill. Flip-flopper Mitt Romney was initially against the bill; now, he’s for it.

At a congressional hearing held last month, women were not allowed to speak. The one female witness, Sandra Fluke, brought in by Democrats, was rejected by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for being “unqualified” to speak on the topic.

In an attempt to silence all women, Rush Limbaugh publicly called Sandra Fluke a prostitute and a slut.

Another GOP assault on women’s health is the forced vaginal probe legislation being considered in Virginia, Alabama, Pennsylvania and Arizona. Although it sounds like a made-for-comedy-television skit, it is no laughing matter. Republican lawmakers want to force women into having a transvaginal ultrasound when considering an abortion. If the legislation passes, women in those states will be forced to submit to a vaginal probe that is medically unnecessary and terribly invasive.

The public needs to pay attention to stop the erosion of our rights and the intrusion of the government into our personal lives.

Patti Murray, New Sharon

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Jillian Campbell's picture

$$$

To the people that say "why should i have to pay for someone else's birth control?".. guess what? you don't have to!! it is the INSURANCE COMPANY that will be paying for it. not you OR the government!!

The average price of birth control pills is about $25 a month. Thats a cost of $300 per year per woman. The cost to give birth in a hospital can range anywhere from $7000-$20000. Providing birth control won't cause premiums to go up.. if anything, it will save the companies money!

They whole point of preventative health care is to prevent more costly procedures in the future.

I am always surprised that the same people that are against abortion and welfare are also agains birth control. I can see no better way to lower the instances of abortion or the amount of people on welfare than preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Its very easy to tell people to just not have sex but unfortunately that mentality works just as well on adults as it does on teenagers.

I also don't understand why people are not as outraged that insurance covers viagra and pumps?? how is that medically necessary? I don't understand why its ok to help a guy get a bonner but its not ok to make sure that he doesn't get someone pregnant?

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Everything that insurance

Everything that insurance pays out, is paid from premiums coming in. If government mandates that some health product or service is "free", it just means that all premiums are raised accordingly. If that doesn't affect you, Jillian, it just means that someone else is paying your premium for you.

Jillian Campbell's picture

i understand where you are coming from but...

i just don't see how it will actually raise premiums though. For every unplanned pregnancy that is prevented, it saves the company thousands upon thousands of dollars. It doesnt only save the cost of the actual hospital stay for the birth but also all the appointments during the pregnancy, ultrasounds etc..

p.s. where do i sign up to have someone pay my premium for me?? that would be nice :)

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Where to sign up?

Call your friendly, neighborhood Democrat pol. If you're not poor enough, he will suggest several ways for you to become poorer.

I have high blood pressure and my medication costs about the same per month as birth control. I get to pay every dime. If I didn't take the stuff, for whatever reason, the results would be catastrophic to my health, to my wallet, and to my health insurance company. My $10K deductible would be consumed in about 2 days in a hospital. So why aren't my meds "free"?

They're not free because high blood pressure isn't as sexy as "women's reproductive health".

DONALD FERLAND's picture

And yet you still have not

And yet you still have not answered the question....Why is it ok for a man to have a boner with the aid of erectile dysfuntion medication but not ok for a woman to have her birth control?

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Perhaps I stated it wrong

Children should be taught that being a parent is more than being the sperm or egg donor. Parent hood is a huge responsibility not to be taken lightly. The sperm donor is responsible for providing for the child both by beng their for them, and to provide them with the items they need to grow into fine healthy adults.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

for women only

Any woman dumb enough to vote for any politician who wants to take her civil rights back to 50 years ago, to shove appliances up there, against her will and that of her doctor, by order of the government, to deny young women health insurance coverage for their reproductive systems, should be sent to live in a harem in Saudi Arabia for a couple of years. The next thing you will hear is that women are too emotional to have the right to vote.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

You listen but you don't hear.

No politician of any credible national stature, of any party, wants to do what you claim, as a matter of public policy. Every politician's private policy may differ. If you require private and public policy to be the same, no one at all is qualified to be elected to anything. The media keep asking candidates the same questions about private vs. public, hoping someone will trip up, so they can have another feeding frenzy to justify their high salaries.

If possible, look away from this stage-managed issue for a moment. In public our president shows up at the proper places, looks properly solemn, says the proper words - except for that awful word "Creator" - and, in general, plays the part of a patriotic American. In private, amply demonstrated in his books and by the company he keeps, he wants to convert the country into one more glorious socialist workers' paradise. Does the press do its job and ask him about the differences between his public and private policies? Is the Pope a Lutheran?

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Stage-managed?

If you mean Republicans would rather talk about mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds than their record on job creation then ya it is stage-managed. There are 3 states where this has already been voted into law and several other states where employers have been given the right to refuse to cover birth control in their health insurance policies so that is not a public stunt. It is in fact a reality that will impact the lives of thousands of women in this country. It may in fact affect men also. When women no longer have access to inexpensive birth control there may be a long line at the vasectomy factory.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Get a grip.

I mean the Pelosi/Fluke show, staged to deflect attention away from the administration's bonehead mandate to the Catholic church.

Just out of curiosity, what do you mean by "cover"? I suspect you mean "pay for". Also out of curiosity, how much money do you personally pay per month for health insurance? How much of your premium is paid by someone else, like an employer? Current federal law requires an employer to disclose to you every year the total cost of your insurance premium. If it's paid by some other agency, like a government, that requirement probably doesn't apply.

In my case, being self-employed, I pay $700 / month for my wife and me for insurance that "covers" everything but "pays for" nothing, until I cough up the $10,000 deductible. A "comprehensive" policy would be $2300 / month, which is typical in Maine for a couple in our age bracket, 60-65.

If you're astonished by those amounts and by my use of the word "typical", you must be in the group that has its premiums "covered".

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

coverage

As I understand it Ms. Fluke asked to testify at a Congressional hearing to represent women on a panel that was composed entirely of men discussing female reproduction and was told she was not qualified to testify. The democrats responded to that by inviting her to testify at an informal hearing. The second event would not have occurred had the first event been handled a little more intelligently. As I understand insurance you pay a premium and the insurance agrees to pay your medical bills for certain procedures. The part of the bill they do not pay for is your co-pay and or deductible. Since you asked I pay premiums and co-pays like eveyone else. Since giving birth is way more expensive than birth control, I suspect the insurance companies would be more than happy to cover birth control and the fewer births that occur the lower their premiums would be. The whole notion of not covering birth control will only result in more abortions, unwanted children, unplanned births, and expensive medical care. It's a bonehead notion that can only have come from desperation to come up with some sort of controversy to base a wedge on.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Compost happens.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Patti, I’ll support our right

Patti,

I’ll support our right to freedom as long as you don’t ask me to pay for your contraception etc.

If you insist that the taxpayer foot bill, I will support mandated invasive anal probes as part of any government funded healthcare procedure just to give you a taste of what the government does to me every April 15th.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

To most of the folks who get

To most of the folks who get free stuff from the government, April 15th is just another day. GYAHICA!

RONALD RIML's picture

The American Family in Historical Perspective.

Here's an interesting site which deals with the History of Private Life

Here's a link with an 'Introduction'

Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities

Does the American Family Have a History? Family Images and Realities

A revolution has taken place in family life since the late 1960s. Today, two-thirds of all married women with children--and an even higher proportion of single mothers--work outside the home, compared to just 16 percent in 1950. Half of all marriages end in divorce--twice the rate in 1966 and three times the rate in 1950. Three children in ten are born out of wedlock. Over a quarter of all children now live with only one parent and fewer than half of live with both their biological mother and father. Meanwhile, the proportion of women who remain unmarried and childless has reached a record high; fully twenty percent of women between the ages of 30 and 34 have not married and over a quarter have had no children, compared to six and eight percent, respectively, in 1970.

These changes have produced alarm, anxiety, and apprehension. They have inspired family values crusaders to condemn careerist mothers, absent fathers, single parents, and unwed parents as the root cause of many of society's ills: persistent poverty, drug abuse, academic failure, and juvenile crime. This is a situation that begs for historical perspective.

Recent scholarship has demonstrated that diversity and change have been the only constants in the history of the American family. Far from signaling the family's imminent demise or an erosion of commitment to children, recent changes in family life are only the latest in a series of disjunctive transformations in family roles, functions, and dynamics that have occurred over the past three centuries.

Few subjects are more shrouded in myths, misconceptions, and misleading generalizations than the history of the family. Students will find the history of the family an eye-opening window on the past. They will discover that:

- It was only in the 1920s that, for the first time, a majority of American families consisted of a breadwinner-husband, a home-maker wife, and children attending school.

- The most rapid increase in unwed pregnancies took place between 1940 and 1958, not in the libertine sixties.

- The defining characteristics of the 1950s family--a rising birth rate, a stable divorce rate, and declining age of marriage--were historical aberrations, out of line with long term historical trends.

- Throughout American history, most families have needed more than one breadwinner to support themselves.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Political cover

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Saw a TV ad this morning that

Saw a TV ad this morning that targeted senior citizens as potential eligibles for food stamps. I guess the regime is going for the Guinness Book record with 50 million Americans on food stamps. The current number on the program is 46 million. There were 31 million on stamps when obama took office. If my math skills are serving me properly, that's a whopping increase of 50% in less than 4 years. When are the republicans going to smarten up and start attacking obama's record instead of torpedoing each other? He's a sitting duck just waiting to be plucked.

RONALD RIML's picture

An 'Oversimplification'

An 'Oversimplification'

What one would expect from you, Mike.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Occam’s Razor – among

Occam’s Razor – among competing hypotheses, the simplest is usually correct.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

Another content-free comment from ...

... Dr. Riml, professor of scatology. No one expects more from you, Ron.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

When I was a young guy my father

When I was a young guy my father gave me a piece of advice. Never have sex with a girl you wouldn't marry. Now mind you this was a time when you ha to ask the druggist for condoms. They were not displayed on shelves freely accesible to five year olds. Then along came the liberals that insiste that sex ed be an elementary school subject. They insisted that comdoms should be available in school and even taught children how to wear them. The stigma of being an unwed mother was taken away. Oh it's ok sweetie we will pay for every thing you need for your child.

So the result is we have second and third generation kids who have no idea who their father is. Many mothers don't know who the child's father is.

What is the solution to this problem? Start teaching children right from wrong.

RONALD RIML's picture

There is nothing new

There is nothing new under the son.... Er, Sun.

Jason Theriault's picture

Well, alot has changed since then.

Well, alot has changed since then.
America gained it's Independence from the king.... ok, I kid =)

I love how you changed gears. Democrats fought for contraceptives education, and in doing so took away the stigma of being a single mom. How does that work?

"Here's a condom, but don't use it, because that would be cool..."

Listen, studies have found that contraceptive education leads to lower teen pregnancy rates. The fact of the matter is that kids are stupid. They will make stupid choices. Hell, when it comes to sex, EVERY age group make stupid choices. So teach kids that abstinence is the best birth control. Then teach them about all the other forms of birth control, so they don’t compound a bad decision with another.

BTW – every time you click disagree, President Clinton get a new intern.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Ahh, but to have Clinton back

Ahh, but to have Clinton back in that oval office. At least, you'd know where he was most of the time, and what he was doing.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Great post, Ernest. You are

Great post, Ernest. You are absolutely correct.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Your father was wrong

In the 1800's mid-wives were required to ask unmarried women who the father of their children were during labor believing that under pain they would tell. That was so the father not the town would be responsibile for the child. But there was no stigma in being unwed. It was purely financial.Had nothing to do with right and wrong.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

You actually believe that

You actually believe that stuff?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Of Course

Its well Documented and true. Check the Midwife's Tale about Hallowell Maine 1795-1812. Then check the sources. Stigma only was attached to unwed mothers after/during Victoria Age post 1850's. The stigma is purely a recent cultural issue.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

My post was unclear and

My post was unclear and incomplete; my fault.
My reference was toward the right and wrong aspects of unwed sex and childbirth out of wedlock,the children of which were called bastards. Babies out of wedlock are practically a badge of honor today and none of the stigmas of old (last 70 years or so) seem to exist any longer. Good or bad? Right or wrong? Who knows? It all depends on one's upbringing and thological beliefs, I guess.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Actually, I agree

I would only add that by thinking of it as a stigma society places a burden on the family, child that benefits no one. My mother (she is 90) tells me of a story she read many years ago as a girl about a teenage girl from Maine (fiction) who went to the Lowell textile mills in the 19th century; was made pregant by a mill supervisor; came home to have the child; the child was given up for adoption and years later she fell in love with a new young man in town and on deciding they would get married found out that the young man was her son and for the rest of her life was shunned by the community. As an old woman she was allowed to freeze to death in a bad winter because no one would bring her wood and she was too old to collect it. Where is the morality, the good and evil in her life. Except when someone is causing us immediate injury, judgements on people's lives are too complex and too uncertain.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Interesting. Given that

Interesting. Given that society has been, within legal confines, the court of public opinion for most of my life, we now find that there is no wrong, anything goes as long as it feels good, and everything that's not right (because nothing is ever wrong, remember?)is someone else's fault. Every American is entitled to what everbody else has, and if they can't or won't get it for themselves, the government should provide it to them at the expense of those who didn't mind getting it for themselves in the first place. And, meanwhile, we're all wondering why U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan are going on shooting sprees, killing civilians; and, disgruntled ex-employees are taking hostages in paper mills in the middle of nowhere.

RONALD RIML's picture

But it's so satisfying

But it's so satisfying for A-Holes to be Judgmental......

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

That letter contains so many

That letter contains so many factual inaccuracies, it's surprising it ever got printed. The Journal must have lowered the bar for content of their LTTEs. However, their purpose is to allow people to express their opinions, and Ms. Murray has done that. AARRGHH!!!(man, that felt good.)

Wilma Turcotte's picture

Intrusion

Government intrudes to much where they aren't wanted and not enough to where they are. Someone needs to address kids having kids and living off the system. Husband and wife choosing not to have more children cause they can't afford it does not make these young people stop having them and giving them birth control does not mean they will take them either. They see no consequences for their actions as they know they just have to go sign up for medical and whatever other programs are available. Maybe someone that needs their heart medication but can't afford it would find insurance paying for birth control pills a bit hypercritcal. You might need a medication in order to live but you don't need birth control not to have children.

MARK GRAVE's picture

Let us consider this idea as

Let us consider this idea as a possible solution. The taxpayer will fund contraceptives for all who request them; however, this means you can never receive child welfare. The premise being that one will not get pregnant and therefore not ever have a need for child welfare if the accept the free contraceptives.

RONALD RIML's picture

I nominate....

I nominate Wilma Turcotte to look into bedroom windows and the back-seats of cars and tell those durn kids to 'Stop' just when it is that they are gittin' ready to do whatever it is that causes kids to have kids....

That oughta do it!!!!!

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

"Have 'em stop eatin'

"Have 'em stop eatin' watermelons", thundered the parrot. "It's the seeds that cause the problems."

Steve Bulger's picture

Not even worthy

of a rebuttal

Wilma Turcotte's picture

You seem to have all the

You seem to have all the answers so we will let you come up with a solution but then guess you don't see a problem at all. Can't anyone here make a statement of facts that are in evidence without a negative reply from you? No don't answer that.

MICHAEL LEBLANC's picture

The bill restricts access to

The bill restricts access to free contraceptives. It undoes the mandate from the pinnacle of hypocrisy, the Democrat in the White House, that insurance cover 100% of the cost.

I would love it if my insurance would cover 100% of the costs of my medications. But it won't, because of high deductibles and co-pays. I can't afford "comprehensive" insurance because the premiums are out sight, due to all the costs shifted to pay for free stuff for people with better advocacy groups than I have.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Interesting how the 'free'

Interesting how the 'free' word is always conveniently omitted when the left is carping about the Republicans denying women access to contraception.

Steve Bulger's picture

Thank you, Mike,

for pointing out the hypocrisy in the liberals' soap box diatribe. No one is trying to "restrict" women's access to contraceptives; conservatives simply don't want to involuntarily fund those medications.
And as for abortions, conception is not a disease; it is the result (except in the cases of rape and incest) of a conscious decision to engage in unprotected intercourse. Why should anyone other than the two people directly involved in the creation of that new life be unwillingly held financially responsible for either the termination or the sustainment of that life? I just don't understand the liberals' contention that there is a shared responsibility here.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

And why should the woman

And why should the woman suffer the consequences alone because the father decides he doesn't want to be part of the child's life and walks away, quits a job to not have to pay child support, and doesn't respond to any requests for help for the child? And BTW parents are responsible for their children until the child reaches 24 and yet as of 18 or 21, depending on the service, the parents have no say. My daughter needs my financial information for financial aid to finish college, is going to be 21 in May, and yet I cannot get any information from the school or talk to her doctor about her medical condition without a signed release. If she cannot pay her bills at school they come to me but not her father because he walked away and stopped having any contact with her once she turned 18 and he no longer had to pay child support. So now all the financial stuff falls on her and me but he gets away scott free. And before any of you say anything....my daughter is the result of failed birth control (condom). So even though I took responsibility for a bad choice and still support my daughter so that she can finish college and support herself, her father walked away and takes no responsibility and would not have paid support if I had not gotten the state to garnish his wages. And so in retrospect, I wish I had had the option of birth control paid for by my insurance as it would have been much cheaper in the long run. Remember any male can be a father but only real men can be daddies. We need more "real men" to stand up and accept the responsibilities for their actions.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot wants to know if

The parrot wants to know if this is a proposal. 0O:-)

Steve Bulger's picture

Pardon me, Tina

Are we discussing contraception and abortion or FAFSA? And what does any of your story have to do with my having to pay for your birth control or abortion? Most people are aware that condoms can fail, so your choice to rely on condoms alone was not a good one, apparently. It all comes down to personal responsibility and accountability. You and your baby's father were not responsible enough to ensure adequate protection against conception, and now you want people who played no part in the act to be held financially accountable for preventing further "mistakes" or subsidizing legalized murder of unborn children?? Sorry, go sell it somewhere else.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Oh and for your

Oh and for your information....I WAS AND AM responsible enough to take responsibility for my actions. I have been and continue to be 21 years later.....I never asked anyone else other than her FATHER to take responsibility.

And I wasn't going to say it but since you seem to be saying I didn't take personal responsibility then why don't you start attacking the men that walk away from their responsibility instead of just taking out your ignorance on the women. Why don't you start telling these men to keep their peckers in their pants and not have sex since they are too irresponsible to take responsibility.

Every day I read more blogs about women should choose to not have sex. Well it's about time the MEN start getting grief for their actions too. But I guess that is just too much to ask of some of the MALE population. And before I get more grief about that comment...I said SOME...not all....

Steve Bulger's picture

In the case of reproductive sex,

it takes two: one from each gender...unless we're talking about immaculate conception here. I agree that there are many males who don't take responsibility for the children they sire, but those are not men. When I was 20 and my 17 year-old girlfriend became pregnant, I married her and supported my daughter(s).
And I'll tell "these men to keep their peckers in their pants" when you tell women to keep their knees together. As I said, it takes two.

DONALD FERLAND's picture

Steve, my point was that if

Steve, my point was that if the insurance that I paid for myself would have covered birth control I would have had more options. Since I was trying to be responsible and use some form of affordable contraception it is my opinion that my insurance SHOULD have covered it since it was ME paying the premiums and ultimately the price. And another thing...would you rather pay for a prescription to prevent pregnancy or the cost of the woman and child on welfare.....I would think it would be cheaper to pay for the prescription for birth control....Now since you claim my child is a "mistake" you go sell your ASSUMPTIONS to some one who cares....

Steve Bulger's picture

Your question,

"would you rather pay for a prescription to prevent pregnancy or the cost of the woman and child on welfare" has been asked and answered in another thread: I don't want to pay for either! If you or anyone else wants to engage in safe sex, buy your own damned birth control.

Steve Bulger's picture

To whoever hit the Disagree button,

perhaps you'd care to grow a spine and point out the parts of my contention that are false. Hmmmm?

RONALD RIML's picture

Maybe you'de care

Maybe you'de care to grow some thick skin and let those 'disagrees' roll off it....

Oh My Gawd - Steve's got 259 whole 'Disagrees!'

Think you'll ever catch up to my 6,590??? Wuss!!!!

DONALD FERLAND's picture

It's probably because he

It's probably because he wants to know who he can slam for daring to not agree with him. Besides there are just some out there that will never get it.....and he probably will never come close to the disagrees that Dan has...LOL

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The parrot sez a 'disagree'

The parrot sez a 'disagree' is nothing more than an opportunity to convert some poor misguided soul over to our way of thinking.

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

The answer to your last

The answer to your last sentence, Steve, is that liberalism is a perpetual state of adolescence compounded by a profound absence of ability to engage in rational thought.

RONALD RIML's picture

And Conservatism???

Conservatism must then be the "Perpetual state of just having got past the angst of 'Potty Training' and being so damned proud of it that one demands all other living organisms match the perfection of your newly found achievement."

- Riml

PAUL ST JEAN's picture

Yeah, something like

Yeah, something like that....I wondered how long it would take you to pounce on that one.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...