No one does. Overall in the US, greater amounts are spent on/by women (https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Sta...).
Men don't even have birth control, although that is generally no fault of anyone (although searching up "feminist opposition to male birth control" brings up some interesting hits: https://www.google.com/search?q=feminist+opposition+to+male+...)
I'm pretty sure female sterilizations aren't banned anywhere in the US either.
About sexual assault cases and lack of rights pertaining to due process, I would suggest that the evidence points to the opposite: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endle...
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-ba...
... What?
> female sterilizations aren't banned anywhere in the US either.
They are as a matter of practice unobtainable in many states that have tried to engage in moral panic over abortion, since many of the same clinics that provide such services are viewed as abortion providers.
> About sexual assault cases and lack of rights pertaining to due process, I would suggest that the evidence points to the opposite:
Thanks for providing a link to a broad survey of data and not a cherry picked article.
They don't have the option of birth control, what's confusing about that?
> They are as a matter of practice unobtainable in many states that have tried to engage in moral panic over abortion, since many of the same clinics that provide such services are viewed as abortion providers.
As far as I understand such clinics are cut off from federal/state funding, in line with the Hyde amendment, and in only three states, right? I'm not sure how this qualifies as systematic oppression of women.
Okay.
But also vasectomies are an unremarkable part of what many government subsidized clinics.
Again, tubal ligation isn't really frowned upon and it is also subsidized. And the ACA requires health insurance...
wait, what?
>many localities have made it effectively impossible to obtain health care services that are related to reproductive health care.
oh. so by framing access to birth control/abortion as "health care", it's now a "health care" issue. that's a interesting way of grabbing attention.
>We could also point to evidence that there is a practical lack of rights to fair trials in sexual assault cases
are you talking about the men or the women in this case?
You could read the paragraph where I point out those drugs have other uses. Women with endomitriosis or PCOS need them and can't get them in many states, living in pain and increased mortality because of moral panic over health care.
But even ignoring that, managing when to have children IS a health issue for many women and for their unborn. For example, many women over 40 take birth control because they're concerned about increased rates of birth defects for children with mother's over 40.
Your attempt to frame a phenomenally complicated biological process as anything but a health issue is your politically informed opinion.
Also I don't think hysterectomies/"getting the tubes tied" are illegal or even controversial, which would be a far more similar comparison to vasectomies.
But to answer your question, horrible maternity and paternity leave policies come to mind.
Honest question; I am Canadian and am not wholly aware of the state of medical affairs south of the fourty-nine.
But also, this is a "well actually" that attempts to dodge the substance of my post to chip away at it. Ostensibly, these cheaper tactics are frowned upon here and generally considered beneath the desired level of the discourse here.
I'm not sure it is. Your assertion was a central tenet of your argument. Abortion, although I totally agree with it being allowed, is admittedly a messy issue, and I can see why it's polarizing. Trying to frame that as an example for why women supposedly don't have equal rights is IMHO disingenuous.
Because I really question if you'd know simply by casually inspecting your surroundings.
The analogy you made was a pretty central part of your post, and it's really disingenuous to compare abortions to vasectomies. They are utterly different procedures. There simply is no analogy to an abortion procedure for men.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/states-fighting-womens-a...
Women have different health care requirements that in some cases have hormonal treatment and those are both under-subsidized and over-stigmatized because religious people of all stripes think it's okay to override women's rights for the sake of their religion.
Tubal ligation doesn't solve a thing for PCOS and Endomitriosis sufferers. It doesn't solve anything for people with thyroid issues. But these women get substandard or no treatment in the efforts to restrict access to birth control.
But hey, the far less reliable tubal ligation is covered and that makes it fine, because I mentioned casually that men's reproductive care is almost never on the table.
Folks were terribly activist about body autonomy when it was medical marijuana on the table. But you mention "oh also this is birth control" and suddenly questions about why governments should be subsidizing medical care for poor people crop up like this isn't a well studied and decades old public health issue. Children of parents with access to pre-natal care cost less to society and offer more than those without, and this is reflected in the health outcomes of planned vs unplanned children.
No, it was not. I mentioned it in passing. There is no analogue in male health care.
> but you ignore that men have no government subsidized reproductive health care either.
This isn't even about subsidization. The defunding of Planned Parenthood is just insult to he injury of making affordable women's clinics essentially impossible to operate in many places in the US.
If these services were a right (even at the level of "you have a right to purchase these if you can afford them") that practice would be illegal and perhaps even unconstitutional.
And this does more than affect women seeking abortions. Many women with hormonal regulation issues cannot get the care and medication they need because access to medicines which are also birth control is not a right. Largely because of religious objections.
Meanwhile men have an unchallenged right to vasectomies. Feel free to correct me, but it appears to be legal and obtainable as a procedure in every state.
We could also point to evidence that there is a practical lack of rights to fair trials in sexual assault cases, but I'll leave that to someone else.