So, having sex -- and specifically sex that involves a male erection -- isn't a choice for Bill?

What about his wife, does she have any choice in the matter?

(That's a rhetorical, of course. I really don't want to know.)

I love when chicks call guys "assholes".

Don't know why, just do.

Its especially good when the guy really is an asshole, like Orally, and its even better when the asshole isn't me.

In any case, girls, plesae keep doing it, because there is something great about us knowing that you know that we're assholes (much of the time) and that you have the guts to call it out.

Falafel ... whatever.

Bill Oilly usually get my blood boiling, but this was so funny. Once again he makes an ass of himself. So did Keith Olbermann give him the "worst" prize of the day for this?

How much pleasure it gives O'Reilly to be called an asshole and a dick, you'd stop doing it.

Sex therapists and researchers will tell you (along with doctors) that most ED issues are psychological, not medical. (Read "Bonk" for an excellent view on this subject.) The very real side effects of Viagra, while helpful, owe much more to the placebo effect than anything else. Oh, and fertility, well, that IS a medical condition (maybe not a medical PROBLEM, but, indeed, a medical "condition")---one that is long and complicated and expensive. So, if we use O'Reilly's argument, we should fund birth control and NOT viagra.

if unempathetic moronic nitwits didn't have this guy to focus on where would they have to go to get their opinions?

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for O'Reilly, he was the guy that coined "Canuckistan" after all (in disapproval of Canadian medicare).

But really, every time the bozo opens his mouth, he probably scores Obama several thousand more votes. He should be encouraged, and brought to a winder audience if at all possible.

there are many who agree with him. Several have posted nearly identical sentiments on Broadsheet, and on Joan Walsh's column, last week.

But, my favorite part is "birth control is a personal choice." Which in this context is kinda like saying "Aspirin is a personal choice." No, darling. Aspirin is a pill.

"At least you don't need to worry about being covered for Viagra: You're already a dick."

In all fairness to Bill's argument, he is a soft dick.

I'm confused here. Sex for men is a medical condition and sex for women is a personal choice? Well I think I know whose not getting it.

. . . . when patients would come to me in the office asking for help to quit smoking. The patients wanted Zyban, a medication which was identical to the antidepressant Wellbutrin.

No insurance would pay for smoking cessation counseling or medication. Smoking, to the insurance companies, was a "habit," not a medical problem.

However, depression is a medical problem. So I would just write in my note, "The patient is depressed because she can't quit smoking." Then, I would list the diagnosis as depression, prescribe the Wellbutrin, and be done with it.

In the same way, if the insurance companies want to be ornery about birth control, you can usually find a medical problem to finesse it. Acne works pretty well. So do hot flashes and mood swings. If all else fails, there is always "dysmenorrhea" or painful monthly periods. Have cramps? You qualify, girl.

Bill O'Reilly did not coin the term "Canuckistan". This colloquialism has been used for years in a variety of contexts, from referring to the Canadian wilderness to a mildly racist description of Vancouver.

But back to the subject at hand, I don’t think the right realizes how bad the “pregnant pause” makes them look to 51% of the population. McCain’s bumbling and O’Reilly belligerence resonates well beyond the average Planned Parenthood donor.

yes, Bill O is an asshole and a blowhard and all of that...but, on the narrow issue of what is a medical condition and what isn't, he has a point. Impotence, or ED, is a medical problem; psychological conditions are also covered by insurance oftentimes. Birth control pills are sometimes prescribed for medical problems, in which case I assume they are covered.

A case in point. Imagine that a couple is trying to get pregnant and they can't because of ED. Infertility is certainly a medical condition that is covered.

I'm for everyone being able to get birth control. 100% I'm behind it. I think without it we cannot truly be free people and own our bodies.

I'm also for Viagra. I think ED is a medical condition, and drugs that treat it are fine.

I think that if any conservative pundit *ever* sneered at a drug or tool that enabled women to fully enjoy their sexuality, if they ever mocked it in the same way I consistently see the feminist blogs mock Viagra, Broadsheet and all the others would rightly flip out.

Why does an issue as critical and significant as birth control have to so frequently be contrasted with Viagra? What purpose does that serve?

How about we win people to our side without resorting to such tactics?

For those who would say I have no sense of humor - I fully support people being allowed to make this comparison, and mock Viagra users all they want, I just think it is a very bad way to make the argument, and also not very funny.

...that there is no such thing as a male birth control pill so the analogy looks kind of dumb to people who haven't drunk the Perpetually-Indignant Feminist flavor of Kool Aid?

Now I can see why I don't fit-in among the Broadsheet crowd. I can't read the phrase "pumped-up penises" without getting a little bit aroused, but the act of writing it makes Ms. Price want to "vomit" apparently.

Well, no one ever got kicked-out of the feminist community for hating men too much.

I think Catherine's reaction to O'Reilly is unconvincing. To paraphrase: O'Reilly is a jerk. Also, some people need to take the hormones in birth control pills for reasons other than preventing pregnancy, so therefore health insurance should cover birth control pills for everyone, or should cover neither Viagra nor birth control pills.

Here's O'Reilly's arguement (please note that this is not my arguement):

1) Medical insurance (especially if paid for by the state!) should pay for procedures that make people's bodies behave "normally." If someone gets bitten by a dog and needs facial reconstruction, then we should pay for plastic surgery. If someone thinks his lips are too thin and wants them plumped up, we shouldn't pay for plastic surgery.

2) Even though aging is normal in the descriptive sense, it isn't "normal" in the value sense. Osteoporosis is a normal feature of aging, but it's not "normal".

3)(a) "Normal" men can get erections. (b) "Normal" women can get pregnant.

4)(a) Viagra causes men who would otherwise not be able to get erections to regain this ability, making their bodies behave "normally". (b) Birth control pills cause women to not be able to get pregnant (or less likely), making their bodies behave less "normally."

5) Viagra should therefore be covered by insurance but birth control should not.

What's wrong with that arguement? Catherine attacks 4(b) by arguing that birth control pills relieve severe PMS and other conditions. Let's assume that O'Reilly -- or the Senate staffer writing a universal health insurance bill -- is willing to pay for birth control pills as long as they're being prescribed to relieve PMS and not to regulate fertility. Are you willing to accept that compromise?

Believe it or not, O'Reilly's arguement -- at least once modified to accept birth control pills prescribed for reasons other than birth control -- is going to be very appealing to a lot of people, even people who believe that birth control is a good thing. If you want a public health insurance to cover birth control pills, you'll need to articulate a better response.