Even is such enlightened halls as these of the Great Orange Satan, I am still hearing comments along the line of "No one is taking away birth control, I just don't want to pay for it", "Why does the government have to pay for your birth control?", "We aren't really talking about removing access, just pay for it yourself" and the like and it is driving me completely batty! As per Santorum himself on ABC News in January, 2012 when asked if he, himself, would outlaw contraception:
The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a constitutional right, the state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.
Without a prescription plan of some kind or without coverage from your health insurance (i.e., they have a prescription plan, but won't cover contraception), a woman's birth control can cost as much as $100 per month. If you are a single woman working for minimum wage in housekeeping or the kitchen of one of those Catholic schools or hospitals and have kids, it could mean the kids go without groceries for a week or without school supplies and the like, so therefore it IS removing access.
If you do not believe that there is an ongoing war on women, then you aren't paying attention, for example:
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women's access to abortion care, they're actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven't yet. Shocker.On March 23, 1972: The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Eisenstadt v. Baird that a state cannot stand in the way of distribution of birth control to a single person, strikes down Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to unmarried women. For more on the history of birth control, please see here
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to "accuser." But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain "victims."
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids' preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn't enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can't make this stuff up).
As per here:
EFFECTIVENESS OF SEX EDUCATION PROGRAMSAs a nation; however we are still closing our eyes, pretending that if we don't see it, it doesn't exist and allowing our teenagers and our women to be pushed aside and treated as if they don't count because we cower in the faces of religion & the "Great Christian Nation".
• Strong evidence suggests that comprehensive approaches to sex education help young people both to withstand the pressures to have sex too soon and to have healthy, responsible and mutually protective relationships when they do become sexually active.
• A November 2007 report found that “two-thirds of the 48 comprehensive programs that supported both abstinence and the use of condoms and contraceptives for sexually active teens had positive behavioral effects.” Many either delayed or reduced sexual activity, reduced the number of sexual partners, or increased the use of condoms or other contraceptives.
• There is no evidence to date that abstinence-only-until-marriage education delays teen sexual activity. Moreover, research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teens, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STIs.
• A 2007 congressionally mandated study found that federally-funded abstinence-only programs have no beneficial impact on young people’s sexual behavior.
• Leading public health and medical professional organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Public Health Association, the Institute of Medicine and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine, support a comprehensive approach to educating young people about sex.
• Although there is no evidence indicating that federally-funded abstinence-only-until-marriage education is effective, a recent randomized controlled trial found that in specific cases, abstinence-only education programs that are specifically tailored to the local community and do not criticize contraceptives nor advocate abstinence until marriage can be effective in delaying sexual debut among younger teens.