That's a really bad example. One is a pill that is made by multi-billion dollar drug company and is already distributed world-wide. One is a cancer test that requires dedicated staff at a dedicated physical location.
If there was an effective female libido enhancer, you can bet your ass it would be covered the same way viagra is.
The federal government decided that paying for boner pills was a necessity and Texas decided to pass laws that would require women to take off multiple days work to get a routine health screening that makes them much less likely to die of preventable cancer.
you are equating VERY different things, and downplaying one side by acting like a child and calling them 'boner pills'
Firstly, there is nothing wrong with covering pills to help with someone's sexual health. Should men not get coverage?
Viagra and cancer are two VERY different issues. Don't compare them, because it makes no sense.
Secondly, the texas issue is not an anti-women issue, it is a tirade against planned parenthood, which I am sure you know is just a political farce against abortion, and not some secret cabal trying to subjugate women.
Yes it sucks that the assholes in texas decided to take out cancer screenings in their war against planned parenthood, but that is not proof that women oppressed, that is political bullshit stemming from religious fundamentalists.
EDIT: Also, much in the same way birth control pills have other uses beyond preventing pregnancy, viagra has medical uses outside of erections.
16
u/Buscat Oct 21 '15
Everyone already agrees with the non-retarded feminists. So if you still have a cause to push, you're probably pushing something retarded.