Minnesota Senator Who Sponsored Vetoed Anti-Abortion Pill Bill Calls Viagra A ‘Drug For Life’
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) has vetoed an anti-abortion bill that would have required a doctor to be present for a woman to take the abortion-inducing drug RU-486, effectively banning “tele-med” abortions and disproportionately affecting women in rural communities. Dayton wrote in his veto letter that patient safety should always be a concern, but “a veto is warranted on legislation because it is driven by a specific political ideology rather than a broad-based concern for protecting all patients.”
Indeed, during debate about the legislation, a Democratic state senator asked why RU-486 should be regulated instead of erectile dysfunction medication. Sen. Paul Gazelka (R), the bill’s sponsor, said Viagra is a “wonderful drug” that “helps create life.” RH Reality Check’s Robin Marty asked Gazelka to clarify his comments about Viagra, and he said in response:
"comparing Viagra to RU-486 was comparing apples and oranges or more like comparing life and death. Viagra is a wonderful medical advancement in that can help couples with sexual disfunction issues…it can even help in producing life. RU486 always destroys life by taking the life of the unborn child."
Gazelka did not respond to Marty’s questions about whether he would sponsor a bill to collect information about men who are prescribed Viagra, similar to “databases created in various other states to gather information on women who obtain abortions.”
Gazelka’s bill and his ensuing comments about Viagra highlight the unfair burden placed on women who seek abortions and related health care. State regulations continue to add additional hurdles women must overcome to access abortions and contraception, while no similar measures block the availably of Viagra for men.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/201
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton (D) has vetoed an anti-abortion bill that would have required a doctor to be present for a woman to take the abortion-inducing drug RU-486, effectively banning “tele-med” abortions and disproportionately affecting women in rural communities. Dayton wrote in his veto letter that patient safety should always be a concern, but “a veto is warranted on legislation because it is driven by a specific political ideology rather than a broad-based concern for protecting all patients.”
Indeed, during debate about the legislation, a Democratic state senator asked why RU-486 should be regulated instead of erectile dysfunction medication. Sen. Paul Gazelka (R), the bill’s sponsor, said Viagra is a “wonderful drug” that “helps create life.” RH Reality Check’s Robin Marty asked Gazelka to clarify his comments about Viagra, and he said in response:
"comparing Viagra to RU-486 was comparing apples and oranges or more like comparing life and death. Viagra is a wonderful medical advancement in that can help couples with sexual disfunction issues…it can even help in producing life. RU486 always destroys life by taking the life of the unborn child."
Gazelka did not respond to Marty’s questions about whether he would sponsor a bill to collect information about men who are prescribed Viagra, similar to “databases created in various other states to gather information on women who obtain abortions.”
Gazelka’s bill and his ensuing comments about Viagra highlight the unfair burden placed on women who seek abortions and related health care. State regulations continue to add additional hurdles women must overcome to access abortions and contraception, while no similar measures block the availably of Viagra for men.
Source: http://thinkprogress.org/health/201
no, but thanks for trying -- the implication is that people who aren't in female bodies/bodies that can be pregnant should fucking listen to those people who are.
Arguing that of course our perspectives would change if our circumstances did doesn't really diminish the point that other posters are making, IMO. They're saying that the lawmaker's privilege and lack of perspective leads him to an opinion that doesn't place enough value on body autonomy. If I were in his shoes, the same privilege and lack of perspective could, quite possibly, lead me to the same opinions. It doesn't take away the fact that the opinions he holds about this issue devalues women's body autonomy.
Take Rick Santorum as a case study in hard-line anti-choice politicians.
As soon as his wife will die if she doesn't have an abortion, he's all in favour of them.
Nah,not likely.
In any case, be sure to have an extra cushion for your lower back; 80% chance you're going to have a sub-thread that's long enough to run right off the right-hand side of the page.
Edited at 2012-05-02 05:17 pm (UTC)
A staunch Catholic conservative Republican.
Absolutely 100% anti-abortion.
Except when his wife would die if she didn't have one.
It's a valid argument because RU-84 can prevent the possibility of pregnancies that can, when unplanned, cause anything from severe financial hardship to employment hardship, massive medical bills or loss of life; all Viagra can do is stiffen the willie, with no regard to whether that sex to be had is responsible. Therefore, the argument that Viagra is somehow morally sanctionable and that RU-84 is well nigh criminal is jsut so much moralizing and horseshit.