Barbara Boxer Compares Viagra to Birth Control. Wait, What?!
In an interview with MSNBC, Barbara Boxer compared birth control to Viagra when discussing the Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. Boxer questioned the companies reasoning for not wanting to cover birth control pills such as Plan B and Ella saying, “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.”
The MSNBC host asked Boxer whether she was comparing Viagra to birth control, considering the fact that the two companies were objecting on moral grounds due to the fact that they thought the type of birth control in question could possibly cause an abortion. Boxer responded by saying,
“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….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.”
Wow, I am not even sure where to begin on this. Viagra gives men, who would otherwise not have the ability, the ability to have sex. Birth control, more specifically Plan B and Ella – the drugs that the companies are taking issue with, prevent pregnancy after the fact. Huge difference.
Also, the reason that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are fighting the HHS mandate is due to the fact that these drugs can act as an abortifacient as opposed to simply preventing a pregnancy. These drugs act by preventing ovulation, thickening cervical mucus so the egg and sperm cannot meet, and altering the endometrium so that the fertilized egg cannot attach. While the first two are pregnancy prevention, the third acts as an abortifacient because it hinders an already growing human being from attaching to the uterine wall, therefore causing the body to abort it.
These after the fact drugs are also more likely to act as an abortifacient because the drug will start acting after a woman has already had sex so it increases the likelihood that a woman’s egg will have already been fertilized and on its journey to the uterus. The only way the drug can still prevent a pregnancy once the egg has been fertilized is to thin the woman’s uterine wall and prevent the fertilized egg from attaching.
I don’t think any person or company has an issue with a person wanting to have the ability to have sex, which is the only thing that Viagra does, but any person or company that values all human life should have an issue with a drug that causes the body to abort a human being.
This is simply another way for the liberals to lie to the American people and force people to act against their conscience and against their moral and religious objections. The HHS mandate is nothing more, nothing less than an attack on religious freedom and should be treated as such. However, liberal Democrats, such as Barbara Boxer, will do their best to spin this court case as just another case of the right’s war on women.
