Legislation to limit men’s access to Viagra

Share on Tumblr

There’s a wave of female legislators introducing bills to limit men’s access to Viagra. The latest is Nina Turner, Democrat, OH. Her bill would force men who want Viagra to first obtain:

- a signed affadavit from at least one sex partner confirming the man has indeed experienced the symptoms of impotence in the past 90 days- a psychological screening to ensure the condition is, in fact, medical in nature

– ongoing cardiac stress tests and outpatient counseling about potential side effects

– information from the prescribing physician about risks, complications as well as non-medical options including counseling and celibacy

– copy of medical rationale for treatment filed in patient’s medical record

I love this, especially the bit where they need a woman to vouch for them that this is really happening (since a lot of men do procure Viagra not because they have ED but because they’re hoping to have porn-style rock-hard erections that last for hours, and damn the consequences to their health). In this video from CNN, Turner talks about “guiding men through this process.” Also from the video: in 2010, there were 950 anti-abortion bills. In 2011, there were 1100. A current bill in Ohio, introduced by some old man, women would be unable to get an abortion if their fetus has a heartbeat – which can start at 6 weeks, before most women even realize they’re pregnant.

While this legislation is more about protesting the anti-abortion legislation, it actually makes just as much “sense” as any of the abortion legislation does. While some professionally performed abortions result in some complications, Viagra takes a definite toll on the body and must be used properly to avoid the side effects outweighing the benefits. While birth control pills and contraception can also cause side effects, they can also treat actual health problems that are far more dangerous than any side effects they might offer. The same cannot be said for Viagra, which treats a problem that doesn’t need to be treated. You can live without erections, and many men have done so for many years. No one’s denying it may reduce one’s quality of life, but it doesn’t kill like ovarian cancer or mortally complicated childbirth.

There’s another parallel between Viagra and birth control and abortion: all three serve both men and women. These are not just women’s issues, although clearly the intent of these misogynistic lawmakers is to correct God’s little mistake he made when he put one single aspect of human existence (childbirth) outside male control. This is really an issue that affects everyone. Just as a wife who wants to have sex with a husband with ED would suffer without Viagra, husbands who want to have sex with wives who can’t withstand childbirth or need the pill for PCOS or just can’t afford a child would suffer without access to contraception and abortion.

That said, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the Republican’s ideal woman. I dub her Magical Republican Whore Bitch Virgin. She can, simultaneously:

  • Avoid having kids she can’t afford, because having kids you can’t afford is disgusting
  • Have unprotected sex with her husband and magically not get pregnant until they can afford a baby, because contraception is gross, but so is denying your husband sex
  • Avoid getting raped, because that’s all down to her. Fortunately, she has built in sensors that tell her when a rapist is in the vicinity, and if she cannot avoid him, a cyanide pill so she can die with her purity intact. Good girl!
  • Do have sex with men who are about to explode and go stalking through the halls of a university or workplace shooting everyone with a submachine gun, because of course the only things wrong with those poor guys is that those selfish bitches won’t lay them, so of course Magical Republican Whore Bitch Virgin automatically senses this and takes one for the team, so to speak.
  • But it’s okay – her hymen heals after every instance of vaginal intercourse, so she will still be a virgin for her husband! (Magical Southern Baptist Whore Bitch Virgin just gives them blow jobs, which should relieve their frustration while retaining her “virginity” in the “would you like my daughter in exchange for two camels and 40 acres?” sense of virginity.)

If Republicans are so thrilled with God, how come they find so much fault with how He designed human reproduction and sexuality to work?

Comments

  1. says

    I’m glad to see this…not because I don’t want men to have Viagra, but to hopefully help people realize how idiotic the anti-birth control argument really is, and how hypocritical those supporting it are.

    On this note, another great piece in my daily news today by Elise Patkotak, where she makes a further point re: the “freedom of religion” nuts. The Catholic church should refuse to provide coverage for Viagra for unmarried men, because otherwise they’re violating their religious principles against unmarried sex. And they shouldn’t providing coverage for vasectomies, because why else would a man get one except that he wants to have lots of promiscuous sex? She then awaits the outcry about how men who want vasectomies are man-sluts who should make sex tapes.

  2. says

    Spartakos,

    She’ll be waiting a long time. It’s just mind-boggling how people who espouse a particular set of principles can employ double standards without even seeming to notice it. I mean, isn’t the whole point of principles to have a consistent worldview that you stick to through thick and thin?

    Casey,

    Thank you! :)

  3. SunlessNick says

    I love this law. I love it. I want to see it proposed in every single anti-woman legislature, I want to see Rush Limbaugh confronted with it, I want to see bishops asked why they don’t support it.

    Also, I agree with Casey.

  4. Red says

    This is GOLD. Ijust showed this to my sister. I was cackling like a loon.and we high 5ed.

    She also points out, as Viagra can cause heart problems, much of what’s being asked is perfectly reasonable. And really, it’s only fair. If women ahould have to deal with this sort of thing when they go on BC, then why shouldn’t men be screened before taking Viagra?

  5. MaggieCat says

    I heard about this on the news this morning, and for a brief moment I wasn’t embarrassed for my state. And let’s include the bill’s co-sponsor: Charleta B. Tavares, D/Columbus.

    I also find it very appropriate that Turner is the Minority Whip, the person who’s supposed to ensure people maintain party policy. Nice reminder that Democrats are supposed to be the ‘women are people too’ party and a lot of them have been asleep at the wheel lately.

  6. says

    SunlessNick,

    Those confrontations would be VERY interesting, wouldn’t they? And chilling, too, because they would try to rationalize it, and I think it would become immediately obvious that they just want the world to be this landscape of sexyfuntimes for men, and women (and children) are just part of that landscape.

    Red,

    Exactly! Given that the pill treats a couple of conditions which are potentially deadly and Viagra treats a condition that never killed anyone, it actually makes LESS sense that insurance tends to cover Viagra more than contraceptives.

    MaggieCat,

    Thanks for the added credit and details! And yes, you’re right – I’ve been really disappointed with the Democrats for a very long time, because the party as a whole is not even trying to keep the Republicans in check. I’m really pleased that these legislators are taking a public stand.

  7. MaggieCat says

    Jennifer Kesler:
    Exactly! Given that the pill treats a couple of conditions which are potentially deadly and Viagra treats a condition that never killed anyone, it actually makes LESS sense that insurance tends to cover Viagra more than contraceptives.

    Sildenafil (the medication in Viagra) has other medical uses too. Pulmonary arterial hypertension/right-sided heart failure and high altitude pulmonary edema — since it works to relax lung tissue without affecting the rest of the vascular system. It’s just that much like medical conditions treated with BC pills, that just isn’t what the public latches onto because it makes a far less interesting story.

    And given the number of medications used off-label or later approved to treat conditions that have nothing to do with their original use, I’m surprised there hasn’t been more visible outrage from the medical community who should realize that it’s a slippery slope to restrict access to medications on a single moral ground, however tenuous, that affect loads of people who don’t have anything to do with the controversy.

    Hell, I’ve been on several drugs that weren’t designed for what they were being prescribed to me for. One of which is even used frequently as an abortifacient in cases of ectopic pregnancy, it’s just that no one’s heard of it so there’s no public outcry. I did have to jump through legal hoops for that one even in 2000, but that was because it’s in the same classification as thalidomide. Which now that I think of it makes it even scarier because A) I was on that medication because there was nothing else left for me to try, and B) they are supposed to require female patients to go on oral contraception beforehand. (I didn’t, long story short my doctor understood why I didn’t want to and trusted me to understand exactly what would be required of me.)

  8. jose says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Oh, they are consistent. What’s happening here is like that old adagio that if you lie about something, you have to keep making more and more lies to support the initial lie, and at some point you’re going to contradict yourself. They’re lying by saying it’s about religious freedom and about relevant medical information that women should have. That’s why it’s easy to find inconsistencies.

    This is their consistent, real opinion: Women should be given by her father to someone he has previously approved. Then, women should get rid of her father’s last name and adopt her husband’s last name (a sign of property); they should stay at home having children for her husband and taking care of her husband’s children. Barefoot, pregnant, and hopefully with a broken leg. They may not phrase it like this, a lot of them may not have even thought about it that much (because it’s ingrained in culture), but make them look a little more into it and this is what you find.

    With that in mind, everything they do makes sense. Abortion and birth control are bad because they give women autonomy, which they’re not supposed to have, but Viagra is good because it makes men sexually capable, which they’re supposed to be. By the way, he church is indeed against vasectomy and against all sex outside marriage, regardless of the pills that may be involved.

  9. says

    MaggieCat,

    Wow, that IS scary. But you know, the more stories I hear like yours (and even some of mine), the more I think: just let doctors practice medicine. Get the insurers out of it, get the government out of it. And you’re right – there probably isn’t any drug you could ban on moral grounds that wouldn’t harm somebody.

    It’s ironic that we’re getting closer to legalizing or decriminalizing pot, but want to get more restrictive on other drugs that should be far less controversial.

    jose,

    I don’t even think they really believe that (and I think you were saying this, too), I think it’s that this is what’s traditional and many people embrace the idea that change is bad, and whatever we already know must be better than the unknown. This is a very regressive POV – the one certainty in life is that nothing stays the same. So even though we all know some changes will not be for the better, it’s irrational to avoid change and try to hold onto things when we know change in unavoidable. It makes so much more sense to involve yourself in trying to choose which changes we should make rather than trying desperately to push the tide back into the ocean twice a day.

  10. says

    I love it. I’ve heard of a few “every sperm is sacred” amendments being proposed, but I like “restrict Viagra” even better because it’s a more direct parallel between the hypocritical treatments of people with penises and people with uteri.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.