The GMP on the affordable care act

How the times have changed. I remember being fed up with the GMP but more recently it seems there has been a paradigm shift and with Noah Brand (from NSWTM) as new editor in chief the site is certainly much better than before. So, there have been 2 interesting posts on the ACA recently:

For the first time ever, the U.S. government will expand access to preventive health services for women without requiring equivalent coverage for men. The U.S. Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes labeled by critics as “Obamacare,” will be rolled out using rules likely to deny men equal access to contraception, sterilization, sexually transmitted infection prevention, domestic violence screening and counseling, and even counseling for HIV-positive men.

[...]In a nutshell, women’s IUDs, contraceptive pills and implants, tubal ligations and birth control counseling must be provided without co-pays, doctor’s visit charges, or deductibles, while insurance companies will be free to charge men for vasectomies and contraceptive counseling. Women will universally receive free counseling if they test HIV-positive, but HIV-positive men will not. HPV can result in anal cancer and genital warts in men as well as cervical cancer in women, but no-cost HPV DNA testing will be added to free pap smears for women, while men pay for HPV tests or go without. The Centers for Disease Control found that 28.5 percent of men—over 40 million men—experience rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner. Those men, unlike women, will first have to ask for help and then pay out of pocket to receive it.

In contrast, a mental health service that men disproportionately need, is not a preventive health service under this Act or HHS guidelines. Men commit suicide at a rate nearly four times that of women. Young men are at particular risk: the National Institute of Mental Health reports that the suicide rate for young men during late adolescence is almost five times that of their female peers, and by their early twenties the rate rises to almost six to one. Reminiscent of Anatole France’s remark about the majestic equality of the law, suicide prevention services are excluded from the ACA / HHS no-cost-sharing package for both women and men.

[2nd Article starts here...] In effect, the sex-neutral insurance pricing required by the ACA already shifts some of the cost of future medical services consumed by women to men. The 2012 report cited above estimated the additional premium costs now borne by women to be over $1 billion a year. Thus, under the ACA, men can expect to bear at least half of those costs—half a billion dollars a year—for services consumed by women.

The theory behind these two fundamental health insurance payment changes wrought by the ACA, is that we are all in it together when it comes to healthcare. Until, in the case of men’s access to reproductive health services and preventive care for men’s diseases, we aren’t. [...]

Erin Gloria Ryan put it well in her recent Jezebel post: “When a woman consents to sex, she is not also consenting to pregnancy.” A woman in the U.S. has a constitutional right to terminate hosting a fetus and unilaterally end any obligation to support and raise a child. A precisely opposite legal regime applies to men. When a man has heterosexual sex he is presumed to have consented to paternity and a couple of decades of child support. To control their own fertility, straight men, unlike women, are entirely dependent on complete abstinence or the highly competent use of very limited and often ineffective birth control methods.[...]

The Federal decision to mandate no-cost preventive reproductive healthcare only for women must be viewed against the backdrop of 1) the sex discrimination prohibition in the ACA; 2) gender-neutral insurance pricing and the individual mandate under the ACA; 3) widespread lack of reproductive health and suicide prevention services for men; 4) the five-year life expectancy gap that disfavors U.S. men; and 5) the 50-year drought of public or private research funding for truly effective, reversible birth control for men. Any given man is some woman’s son or grandson, just as any given woman is some man’s daughter or granddaughter. Are we in this together, or aren’t we?

It is fantastic that women have reproductive rights and many contraceptive choices. No-cost preventive care addressing women’s unique health concerns is necessary. That is not the issue. The issue is that this administration and leading health organizations that purport to believe in widespread access to health care do not seem to hold men in equal regard to women when it comes to birth control, STI services, HIV counseling and screening and counseling for intimate partner violence.

When contacted by GMP, for example, Planned Parenthood was unable to cite anything it had done—or would do—with its impressive lobbying and public affairs operation to encourage HHS to provide men with equal access to reproductive health care under the ACA. [...]

The Guttmacher Institute’s last major review of men’s reproductive health needs and barriers to meeting those needs found the following barriers to addressing the reproductive health of men in their own right: Absence of political will to turn advocacy into action; Lack of funding; Logistical challenges of incorporating men’s services into existing programs; and Inadequate staff.

Men are carefully trained from infancy not to show pain, not to complain about hard knocks and not to seek help. Men are also inaccurately assumed to be omniscient about matters of sex and sexual health. Under these circumstances shouldn’t it be the duty of HHS officials, Members of Congress, public health school deans, medical school professors, public health advocates, the philanthropists and boards who direct major foundations, and maybe even a U.S. President, to demonstrate leadership on this issue?

A breakthrough for men when it comes to contraception and prostate cancer?

I sure hope so, featuring 2 mensactivism links here:

'It is hoped the new treatment, which involves heating only the tumours with a highly focused ultrasound, will mean men can be treated without an overnight stay in hospital and avoiding the distressing side effects associated with current therapies.

A study has found that focal HIFU, high-intensity focused ultrasound, provides the 'perfect' outcome of no major side effects and free of cancer 12 months after treatment, in nine out of ten cases.

[...]

The procedure called RISUG in India (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) takes about 15 minutes with a doctor, is effective after about three days, and lasts for 10 or more years. A doctor applies some local anesthetic, makes a small pinhole in the base of the scrotum, reaches in with a pair of very thin forceps, and pulls out the small white vas deferens tube. Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way. If this all sounds incredibly simple and inexpensive, that’s because it is.

Hijacking another feminist argument...

Well it might just be me, but often when it comes to discussion about contraceptives or more specifically the lack of a male version thereof I get the "keep it in your pants" answer (even in feminist spaces. There is no incidence at hand, but figured I could use the following if such a thing happens again. From feministe:

Trying to think of a fresh angle from which to approach the issue of slut-shaming, I remembered the last time I debated an anti-choice, anti-rights activist who wanted to see women stripped of access to family planning services. Naturally the argument he ultimately resorted to after all his others had been debunked was: “If girls don’t want to get pregnant, they shouldn’t be opening their legs to everyone.”

“Wow,” I’d chuckled to myself, “he didn’t even wait 5 minutes before falling back on old-fashioned slut-shaming. Most anti-choicers at least pretend it’s about the fetus for a little while longer.”

It is similar in a way that when you get "keep it in your pants" while discussing male contraceptive options it can be framed as slut shaming. Might be a far fetch....found it interesting. Stop judging me....darn.

Male and female contraceptives

Oh my. Sometimes I feel I read too much feministing. It is much too interesting though to spot bias in people who might even believe they are for equality. It is especially telling in posts about male contraceptions. You know when you read posts like that

And I understand that a lot of the male-bashing on this website is reaction against the patriarchy, but it delves our whole community into stereotype and is a primary reason why I visit this site less and less.

it will get extra-biased. Now before I come to one comment in particular, some thoughts about male contraceptives. For men there are just condoms (although feminist like to point out that men can refuse to have sex or have an operation as well, easy to say when you got dozens of easy to use effective contraceptions, which is just using female privilege here but back to the point). The shocking truth according to the following, condoms are really not more effective than withdrawal:

A new commentary, “Better Than Nothing or Savvy Risk-Reduction Practice? The Importance of Withdrawal,” by Rachel K. Jones et al., published in the June 2009 issue of Contraception, highlights that withdrawal is only slightly less effective than the male condom at preventing pregnancy.

[...]

The best available estimates indicate that with “perfect use,” 4% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 2% of couples relying on the male condom. More realistic estimates suggest that with “typical use,” 18% of couples relying on withdrawal will become pregnant within a year, compared with 17% of those using the male condom. In other words, with either method, more than eight in 10 avoid pregnancy.


A majority of sexually experienced women rely on withdrawal at some point in their life—56%, according to the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. (By comparison, 82% have ever used the pill, and 90% the male condom.) However, only 5% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy currently use the method (11% when those who use it in conjunction with another method are included). A smaller study, the Women’s Well-Being and Sexuality Study, found that 21% of younger and more educated women were using withdrawal.

[...]

“Hormonal and long-acting contraceptive methods, such as the IUD, are the most effective means of preventing pregnancy,” says lead author Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute.

from here

Keep that in mind. Now some feminist are so deep in vicitm mode, they actually mistake privilege with opression:

one thing i found particularly interesting about the article, it reported that promotion of male birth control was slow because men complained about the side effects - mood changes, fatigue, etc. this one looks promising because it has fewer side effects.

i don't know what the extent of the side effects were, but it's possible that they were taken more seriously because they were men. meanwhile, women using birth control have always been dealing with side effects. just another way society controls women's bodies.

The irony, reverse the situation as in there was a male pill but not a female equivalent. The above would be more close to the truth. Well as some of the posts talk about the serious side effects of the female pill I did some research and it seems to me we are trying to rehash myths again:

The Pill makes you fat
Not necessarily:
When the Pill was first introduced it contained much higher levels of hormones than what is available in the formulations today (100-175 micrograms of oestrogen compared to 20-50 micrograms today). While weight gain was associated with these older high dose pills, the Pill formulations used today do not always result in weight gain. It is estimated that in the first year of use:

* 20-25% of women gain more than 2kg
* 60% of women experience no change or have a weight change within 2kg (both up and down)
* 15-20% of women actually lose more than 2kg weight (6).

The progestogen in the Pill can increase appetite which may result in weight gain. Some women may also experience water retention but this can often be reduced by switching to a lower dose pill. Some brands of the Pill are said to be more effective at reducing the symptoms of water retention.

The Pill makes you infertile
False:
This myth may stem from the fact that women using the Pill as a form of contraception may delay childbearing until their late 30s, a time when their natural fertility has declined. When these women go off the Pill and experience difficulty getting pregnant they think the Pill has made them infertile when, in fact, the problem is age-related. In addition, a woman (or her partner) may have always had a fertility problem but it was never realised before because they were not trying to get pregnant (8). It may take a few months for cycles to return to normal for women who were on the Pill.

The Pill causes cancer
Not necessarily:
The Pill actually provides a protective effect from cancer of the ovaries and cancer of the endometrium (the lining of the uterus). Women who take the combined oral contraceptive pill show an increased risk of cervical cancer but a direct causal link has not been established. It has been suggested that women who use the oral contraceptive pill may be less likely to use condoms with new sexual partners and, therefore, can be more at risk of being exposed to the genital human papilloma virus (which is considered to be the main contributing factor to cervical cancer). A 1996 review of data on the Pill's use and breast cancer found there was a small increased risk of breast cancer in Pill users, but this increased risk decreased after stopping use and after 10 years of discontinuation it had disappeared altogether (10).

from here

Nearly 17 million women in the US rely on birth control pills for reliable contraception and other medical benefits. But I wonder how many others would benefit from the Pill if it weren't for several myths in circulation.

# The most prevalent myth is that "Taking the pill makes you fat". Not! Ironically, most women who told me this were teenagers who stopped taking the pill because they heard that and then got pregnant. Pregnancy makes you fat. Eating too much and exercising too little makes you fat. Most low dose Pills have little effect on weight gain, water retention or appetite.

# Another myth: "If I take the pill my face will break out." Not true. Studies have even found that certain formulations of birth control pills can even decrease the severity of preexisting acne.

# The myth that bothers me the most is that the Pill " may increase breast cancer risk". This is not true. An analysis of 54 studies in 25 countries found no increased risk of breast cancer 10 or more years after women stopped taking the pill compared with women who never took it. This is true for women even with a family history of breast cancer.

# Another myth is that "If you've tried one Pill, you've tried them all". Not true. While many birth control pills are similar, there are many different formulations offering different doses, side effects and different benefits.

# Some women mistakenly think that once they stop taking the Pill , they'll have difficulty getting pregnant. This is not true. A woman who stops taking the pill will have no more trouble conceiving than a woman OF THE SAME AGE who did not take them.

from here

[...] A 2000 British review article concluded there is no evidence that modern low-dose pills cause weight gain, but that fear of weight gain contributed to poor compliance in taking the Pill and subsequent unintended pregnancy, especially among adolescents. [...]

Health Benefits

The use of oral contraceptives (birth control pills) for five years or more decreases the risk of ovarian cancer in later life by 50%.

Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.

Taking oral contraceptives also reduces the risk of colorectal cancer, and improves conditions such as pelvic inflammatory disease, dysmenorrhea, premenstrual syndrome, and acne.

from Wiki

Can you actually belief this? Having X contraceptives availiable that even help against others diseases, are safe and easy to use, as well as having options on emergency pills, abortion and adoption vs a plastic bag the other gender can pull over their genitals and yet there is still only nagging from the most priviledged group on this planet (when it comes to contraception). Unbelieveable.

Apart from all of this and all this female bickering about the male pill one blog really hit the nail on the head. Sorry ladies, the male birth control pill is not about you

Oh another tidbit I found was that one:

According to data published this year by the National Center for Health Statistics, American men reported that only 65 percent of the children they had fathered over a five-year period were anticipated. Twenty-five percent were “mistimed,” and 9 percent were described as unwanted.

An international survey that included 1,500 American men found last year that nearly half of them would be willing to use some new form of male contraception. (They split on whether they would prefer a daily pill or a longer-term implant.) Only 12 percent said they would never consider it.

from here