The Politics of Penises and Pregnancies

An astute reader brought to my attention a new drug in the fight against a disease that afflicts an enormous number of men in America, causing untold pain, suffering and humiliation, and ruining families, marriages and lives. I am speaking, of course, about erectile dysfunction.

Yes, apparently having three choices of pills (Viagra, Levitra and Cialis), along with numerous homeopathic and surgical options, is not enough to combat the terror of limp dick syndrome. Now there is a new option, a pill called Avanafil. The manufacturer has released studies that show it works in 20-30 minutes, much faster than the other medicines. No more waiting, ladies!

I am not surprised, sadly, since BILLIONS of dollars are spent every year on research, production and distribution of dick pills. Seriously. I looked it up. $3.8 billion in sales alone, not including research and development. And more than half of insurance companies cover the pills.

So I am just going to sit back now and wait for Congress to debate the merits of health insurance coverage for erectile dysfunction remedies. I'm sure it will be a raucous debate, with all those conservatives insisting that there is no need to provide coverage for this unnecessary and elective medical intervention. Surely tax payer dollars should not be going to insurance companies that would pay for grandpa and grandma to get it on, or for some wrinkled old CEO to bang his secretary, or for some sex offender to get his jollies (this happens more than you think - Google it). That would be wrong and we won't stand for it.

(Crickets.)

Yeah, I know that's not going to happen. Why is it that a bunch of crabby old white men can get all up into our uteruses like they own the joint but impotence is a dirty word? Why doesn't a female Senator demand that no tax payer dollars go to treat erectile dysfunction? Why in the world is abortion - which is still legal, by the way - even coming into the discussion? Has no one figured out the the penis and the pregnancy are related? Apparently the Republican National Committee knows this because until this week the RNC's own health insurance covered abortions. You read that right - Michael Steele just found out about it and canceled that coverage, but it has been there since the early '90s.

So if the conservatives get their way, is the morning-after pill going to be covered for a rape victim? After all, Sarah Palin and her friends equate the morning-after pill to abortion. Did you know that Palin actually passed a law in Alaska that rape victims be charged for the cost of the rape kit used to collect evidence? Yes, I checked. She found out that the rape kit contains a pill to stop an impending pregnancy and she refused to use tax payer dollars for the kit, so now if you get raped in Alaska (which is more likely to occur than in any other state in the nation) you will receive an invoice from the state for the rape evidence kit. Nice, huh? Raped once by a thug and again by Sarah Palin.

Now, I'm not saying that abortion should be used as birth control. Birth control should be used as birth control. For every government dollar spent on birth control, $4 is saved in expenses related to unwanted pregnancies. But when birth control fails, rape or incest has occurred, or the mother's health (and yes, that includes mental health) is at risk, abortions should remain safe and legal.

I did not invent the opening description of erectile dysfunction for comic effect, although I could have. I took it from various men's health websites. Which helps me make this point: whether you like it or not, legal abortion counts as women's health care, just as much as Viagra counts as men's health care.