In case you thought that they had actually come to their senses and stopped being raging misogynists, rest assured: Republicans in Congress continue to hate women with a passion. Honestly, these folks make Neanderthals look like progressive feminists.
The latest evidence of their cretinous behavior: When the House Energy and Commerce committee spent 27 hours this week discussing the proposed Republican Affordable Care Act (ACA) revisions, Illinois Rep. John Shmikus pondered the necessity of insurance plans to cover pregnancy and childbirth.
"What about men having to purchase prenatal care?" Shimkus said. [...]
"I'm just ... is that not correct?" Shimkus said. "And should they?"
Of course, this was in reference to the fact that the Affordable Care Act currently requires insurance plans to cover pregnancy and childbirth. It’s not really clear how anyone who is civilized can object to this. After all, plans cover all kinds of things that may not be applicable to an individual who is covered. That’s the way that risk works. Do we really want to be the kind of country that penalizes women for having babies (again)? And what about the pro-family mantra that Republicans are so notorious for touting? Apparently, they want you to have babies but they don’t want you to be able to afford to pay for them.
What’s worse is that this is not new—opponents of the ACA have been asking this question for a while now.
In 2013 during a meeting of the House Energy and Commerce committee, another Republican, Rep. Renee Elmers of North Carolina asked the same thing.
"Do men not have to buy maternity coverage?" Ellmers said, referring to the health-care law's essential health benefits. "To the best of your knowledge, has a man ever delivered a baby?"
Hey, Republicans, here’s a newsflash: the men will be just fine. But in case you really need proof, here’s what insurance expert Nancy Metcalf has to say about that:
Health insurance, like all insurance, works by pooling risks. The healthy subsidize the sick, who could be somebody else this year and you next year. Those risks include any kind of health care a person might need from birth to death-prenatal care through hospice. No individual is likely to need all of it, but we will all need some of it eventually. [...]
So, as a middle-aged childless man you resent having to pay for maternity care or kids' dental care. Shouldn't turnabout be fair play? Shouldn't pregnant women and kids be able to say, "Fine, but in that case why should we have to pay for your Viagra, or prostate cancer tests, or the heart attack and high blood pressure you are many times more likely to suffer from than we are?"
We know the Republican men in Congress certainly don’t want to give up their Viagra or Rogaine. And women across the country don’t want to give up pregnancy and childbirth coverage either. And in a decent and humane society, we shouldn’t have to.
