How about the strange absence of an article about Senator Obama's morphing views on abortion?

One lame post from Kissling that was soon buried here on Broadsheet and less than a sentence of mention in Joan Walsh's latest blog doesn't cut it.

Why hasn't Salon addressed this issue in a substantive manner?

It sucks that Senator Obama tossed women's rights regarding abortion under the bus, but it sure is telling that Salon is giving the issue back of the bus coverage.

For those curious about what Senator Obama said - you can read about it over here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/obama_leaves_blue_women_seeing.html

Marie Cocco covers what Salon ignores.

My signature takes you there as well.

Nuff said.

Viagra is used to treat a medical disorder. I know of no major insurance carrier that doesn't cover birth control that is prescribed for medical reasons.

The problem is that birth control to simply control not getting pregnant does not actually address a medical need. Nothing is wrong with the person.

While I think insurance should cover all birth control, they aren't even medically obligated, much less some issue of fairness.

I noticed you even changed health insurance to insurance. They cover your health, not your lifestyle choices.

BTW, I don't think they should cover viagra, but at least it's a medically recognized disorder. Preventing pregnancy is not.

John McCain is obviously waiting for word from the White House as to what his position will be.

Viagra is NOT always used to treat medical disorders, and I don't know of any major medical companies that restrict payment for it for that reason. If you're saying that it's OK to insure Viagra because of that, then birth control--which can also be prescribed to treat medical problems--should get the same treatment by insurance companies.

it's pretty fair because some dude with erectile dysfunction isn't going to be able to get it up on his own no matter how hard he tries. some bitch who doesn't want to get pregnant simply needs to say "sorry, no sex tonight unless you wear a condom" or just, you know, not have sex at all.

Viagra is NOT always used to treat medical disorders, and I don't know of any major medical companies that restrict payment for it for that reason.

When is Viagra prescribed other than to treat a medical disorder?

While people will obtain Viagra for non-medical reasons, that's fraud.

If you're saying that it's OK to insure Viagra because of that, then birth control--which can also be prescribed to treat medical problems--should get the same treatment by insurance companies.

When birth control is for treatment of medical disorders, such as endometriosis, it is covered by health insurance.

When Viagra is for treatment of medical disorders, such as erectile dysfunction, it is covered by health insurance.

Now, the presumption on a Viagra prescription will be that it is for ED so it will usually be covered. If it is discovered that the person does not have a medical reason for Viagra, then he can be prosecuted both criminally and civilly.

The presumption with Birth Control is that it is not for a medical reason, so may not be covered.

That’s because 99% of the time Birth Control is for other than medical reasons. Being able to have a child is not a medical condition.

True, pregnancy isn't a medical disorder but it is a medical condition last time I checked. Oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy just as Viagra tablets prevent erectile dysfunction, not including the other medical reasons both medications are prescribed. The bottom line is that contraceptives (oral or otherwise) and erectile dysfunction medications allow people to enjoy sex but only women's medications are targeted; someone has to think of our honour.

Let me know when pharmacists start refusing to fill prescriptions for Viagra, et al.

Maybe you've given us the answer: maybe *all* women between the age of of 15 and 50, with a functioning uterus and ovaries, have endometriosis.

In all seriousness, Viagra and Ortho Novum have their similarities.

Viagra, like birth the control pill, is a "lifestyle drug." Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition, but is not an illness. It is not a disease. It can often be alleviated by making lifestyle changes (losing weight, eating a healthier diet, abstaining from alcohol, getting more exercise and more sleep, etc). And abstaining from sex eliminates the need for Viagra. Pregnancy is not an illness or disease, but it is likewise a medical condition. And it can also be prevented by abstaining from sex.

But, ED, even when not caused by, say, an enlarged prostate, is considered (by most insurance companies), a condition needing a cure. Unintended pregnancies, on the other hand, are considered by these same companies, a fair gamble.

The question is weirdly worded and confusing. He wasn't trying to come up with an answer, he was trying to figure out what the heck they were talking about.

The word "unfair" presupposes that it's desirable for the insurance carriers to cover birth control. Whether or not that's true is an issue in itself. Then you have to decide what the connection is between these two issues...is there really one at all?

True, pregnancy isn't a medical disorder but it is a medical condition last time I checked. Oral contraceptives prevent pregnancy just as Viagra tablets prevent erectile dysfunction, not including the other medical reasons both medications are prescribed.

No, Viagra treats ED, it doesn't prevent it. It's treatment for a medical condition.

Birth Control pills for prevention of pregnancy is no different that asking for a health insurance company to pay for your condoms.

The fair comparison would be if a health insurance company covers the cost of male contraceptives shouldn't they cover the cost of female contraceptives.

Other than involving sex, Viagra and birth control pills have nothing in common.

Health insurance companies would like to not cover Viagra, but it's listed as a medical disorder, so they have to.

But he can't tell us what he really thinks. He has to consider the insurance company lobbyists, the pharma lobbyists and what the Republican Party leaders tell him to think based on their polls of people who either can't get pregnant, don't have to deal with this issue (because they have good insurance) or think that birth control is morally "wrong."

This is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics. We only reward the bullsh*tters.