Advertisements

During an interview with Chris Jansing of MSNBC on Tuesday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) slammed the people running Hobby Lobby for having no moral qualms covering Viagra on their insurance plan. Boxer was on Jansing and Co. to discuss the current case before the Supreme Court, Sebelius V. Hobby Lobby.

Advertisements

The arts and crafts store is currently challenging the requirement that the company’s medical insurance cover all forms of birth control. Essentially, the corporate heads state that they have a moral objection to this requirement on religious grounds, and that their corporation should be seen as a religious entity. The court’s decision could have far-reaching implications, especially if it rules in favor of Hobby Lobby. The very definition of a corporation could be changed and it is possible that a loophole could be formed allowing other businesses to claim ‘religious freedom’ as a way of circumventing the law.

Anyway, Boxer wondered aloud why those who are objecting to women having their birth control covered by their health insurance have no similar objection to the same insurance covering Viagra for men.

“I have never heard Hobby Lobby or any other corporation, I could be wrong, or any other boss complain that Viagra is covered in many insurance plans, practically all of them, or other kinds of things, you know, for men, which I won’t go into.”

Jansing then responded back that those who are objecting aren’t doing so due to premarital sex or an aversion to sex in general, but because this ‘is a life issue.’ Boxer then hammered back at that argument and pointed out the slippery slope that this presents. If corporations like Hobby Lobby are allowed to circumvent the law of the land by stating it infringes on the company’s religious freedom, then what else can a corporation be allowed to get away with?

“I have never heard them put any type of moral objection, remember, this is a moral objection, to men getting Viagra, but they have a moral objection to women getting certain types of birth control.What’s their next moral objection, do they then object to vaccinations? Where do you take it from here? … There has been a well-documented study by a university that gave women free birth control for several years. Abortions went down by 50 percent, Chris. So if you are for life and want to attack this issue for abortion, this is a place we could work together and reduce the number of abortions. I view this as very much an anti-woman position to take. And it’s important to note that women take birth control, more than half of them, as a medication for other conditions, so it is an attack on women. I think it’s an attack on the religious freedom of the women who work there. Remember, no one is forced to take birth control. It’s an individual right, and this is America, and this is the 21st century, and this is shocking.”

In a nutshell, Boxer pointed out that not only is this case being used as a way for corporations to get around laws that they don’t like, but it is also a way for men to exert control over women. Sen. Boxer brilliantly interjected the fact that Viagra and other ‘erectile dysfunction’ drugs are generally covered by employer-provided health insurance plans. Yet, there appears to be no moral objection voiced anywhere about this, despite the fact that the only use for these drugs are so men, usually older, can engage in sexual intercourse.

Obviously Sen. Boxer sees the irony that the majority of those doing the objecting regarding birth control are older men. This also serves as a nice little dig at Rush Limbaugh and his slut-shaming of Sandra Fluke back in 2012. Limbaugh, as well as other male conservative pundits like Bill O’Reilly, have objected to insurance fully covering contraception because they feel it promotes promiscuity.