Viagra versus the birth control pill

[Guest guest]

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Viagra restores a normal function that was lost, the pill removes a normal function, fertility. Hanna Klaus From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:12 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Viagra versus the birth control pill Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on " The View " because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

sorry, didn't explain myself right but thank you Hanna and Dom for your prompt replies. As a family doctor, when a man comes in for decreased drive or related complaints, i will begin by checking a testosterone level. If it is low, i begin with testosterone replacement, and invariably they are helped by the testosterone, but may still want the viagra or cialis to improve their ability to perform with their spouse. Again unrealisic explanations and the perpetuation of youth come to mind here. Hanna's previous comments on estrogen and osteoporosis and the whole role of these drugs in aging process from previous posts are also on my mind.

If we consider that if a postmenopausal woman came in for decreased libido, a physician may check an estrogen level, or a testosterone level, or they may just assume that these were going to be low, and they may offer estorgen HRT (hormone replacement therapy) with or without testosterone and either with or without progesterone (depending on if she has a uterus or not). So, until this point, both arguments are parallel. We could use estrogen to help the woman's decreased drive, and we could use testosterone to help the man's decreased drive. Since viagra is not being used currently for women's decreased drive, we do not currently offer that.

Now, oral contraception is not being used to replace anything missing in the woman, and in fact, shuts down the woman's fertility system and would in fact cause a decrease in libido from the effects of the SHBG on the free testosterone levels. So, if you correctly follow this argument, O'Reilly's comparing viagra to the birth control pill is indeed not apples to apples, and indicates that viagra helps replace what has normally diminished in the man but that the birth control pill harms or shut down what is present in the woman and indeed goes a step further and causes a loss of something that was previously there (fertility and libido).

Furthermore, we could argue whether we as society think it is healthy to perpetuate hormones on older people into their later years. Clearly for women, postmenopausal HRT has caused an increase in breast cancer. Testosterone replacement can accelorate occult prostate maligancies as well.

If you see an error in my logic, please let me know. Thanks to all, rebecca

To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:37 AMSubject: Re: Viagra versus the birth control pill

But viagra is a pill to correct a medical condition!!! -- it's a phosphodiesterase inhibitor that works on the local vasodilator systems to correct erectile dysfunction. In a different form the very same drug is also a treatment for primary pulmonary hypertension and most often, ironically, is used for women in that condition. I say "ironically" because without the drug company developing it for ED it likely never would have been available for the many very sick women who need it for their pulmonary circulation. No misogyny or chauvinism here -- it really is a medial treatment.

Now of course it can and probably often is abused, but that's a different issue right? So are narcotics,muscle relaxants, sedatives, anxiolytics, etc., etc., so we ought not let opponents make silly arguments. If that were the primary objection it would also seem to invalidate for them any recourse to the need for "emergency contraceptives" because that depends on not being "abused" in their minds right? Thomistically speaking, everything is in the details and distinctions, so we need to keep apples apples and not pears. And -- even more irony (is it a full moon today?) -- if anyone wanted to argue that men abuse the drug and that's why the drug company cravenly made it available in the first place, while I wouldn't disagree, I'd have to point out that contraception has been the single most influential factor in the "pornographying" (recreationalizing) of sex in the first place.

The other reason it's a dumb argument I think, is it's not even properly speaking a "feminine" argument at all. Can you imagine all these women out there upset that men are able to have so much sex? Does that even sound rational or womanly?

Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell)

(FAX)pedullad@...

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Viagra is for men with erectile dysfunction (unable to achieve an erection). Phamacologically, it stimulates circulation in the penis to achieve an erection. It is not an aphrodisiac, it does not stimulate orgasm or ejaculation; it has nothing to do with libido or desire. It IS truly for a urologic pathology secondary to circulatory issues with lack of ability to achieve erection or decreased erectile strength. The pill on the other hand suppresses ovulation in a normal healthy female who has NO pathology; it creates a “pseudo-pregnancy” by instilling estrogens and progestins in doses almost as high as pregnancy shutting down the feedback loops between the ovary and the pituitary. It suppresses libido in women; it increases the risk of breast cancer, cervical cancer, blood clots, phlebitis, DVT, PE, death, gall bladder disease. It can lighten menses, help dysmenorrhea but is NOT a treatment for anything. It has never been included in a double blinded/placebo controlled trial or study. All of the studies are retrospective or cohort studies. The studies are not on matched populations and to the best of my limited knowledge do not pass the muster for evidence based medicine and yet they flourish. As far as I am concerned it is a lifestyle drug, which I suppose could be argued by women against erectile dysfunctional men that Viagara is also lifestyle; however, no one will ever admit the former because now it is out of the realm of medicine and in the realm and political rights and religion and you know what they say about that! As far as vasectomies, tubal ligations are also covered equally. Most insurance plans do cover hormonal contraceptives; if one doesn’t have insurance there is Title X and PPH which is subsidized by your tax dollars to the tune of $385 M per yr to give them to anyone who comes in (including minors without parents consent)…………so there is NO lack of access to contraceptives in our country……..it is NOT about a women’s rights; it is NOT about drugs or medicine; it IS about fragmenting the Catholic Church and destroying conscience clauses ultimately leading to government control of 1/6 of the GDP in our country. The biggest opponent of contraception and one of the biggest providers (25-30%) of healthcare is the Catholic Church.Les Ruppersberger, D.O. From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:12 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Viagra versus the birth control pill . Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on " The View " because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]



Yes, but while ED is a medical condition, it isn't going to kill the patient or render him unable to function in any other way. The use of Viagra type drugs is strictly optional. In the light of the fact that health care costs have gone out of sight, it seems to me that men and women alike should each pay for those drugs that are strictly a matter of personal choice. Strictly optional personal choice is, or at least should be, a matter of personal financial responsibility.

As far as abuses are concerned, I was with a group of volunteer leaf-rakers one Saturday. During a break the pharmacists in the group talked about a customer who got his supply of 30 Viagra pills every month. Now, his wife may have been demanding or patient as the case may be, but I think there was a wide suspicion in the group that he was selling a lot of them to his buddies with less generous or no insurance plans.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with Dominic's assessment of the role of contraception in the recreationalizing of sex in the first place, but the ED ads in sports section of newspapers certainly contribute greatly to the idea that sex is sport.

Kippley

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

That is possibly right but to pass over the proper distinction is to lend confusion. Viagra is a legitimate medicine to treat a legitimate medical condition, at least per se.

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

Re: Viagra versus the birth control pill

Yes, but while ED is a medical condition, it isn't going to kill the patient or render him unable to function in any other way. The use of Viagra type drugs is strictly optional. In the light of the fact that health care costs have gone out of sight, it seems to me that men and women alike should each pay for those drugs that are strictly a matter of personal choice. Strictly optional personal choice is, or at least should be, a matter of personal financial responsibility.

As far as abuses are concerned, I was with a group of volunteer leaf-rakers one Saturday. During a break the pharmacists in the group talked about a customer who got his supply of 30 Viagra pills every month. Now, his wife may have been demanding or patient as the case may be, but I think there was a wide suspicion in the group that he was selling a lot of them to his buddies with less generous or no insurance plans.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with Dominic's assessment of the role of contraception in the recreationalizing of sex in the first place, but the ED ads in sports section of newspapers certainly contribute greatly to the idea that sex is sport.

Kippley

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

No you are perfectly right in all respects.

You know, if we really want to be completely honest with ourselves as a group, shouldn't we define more precisely the pathological state of being on oral contraceptives for birth control purposes, and give it a name?

After all, the provision of oral contraceptives as a way to deliberately induce ovulatory dysfunction is or can be considered a form of iatrogenic endocrine dyscrasia, a form of induced or iatrogenic secondary anovulatory state. As such it should be a syndrome! Why should we be living according to the definitions of confused MDs who have forgotten the difference between good medicine and bad medicine, or to recall St. : "... they have exchanged the truth for a lie".

So, here goes: ICD 628.9A, called "iatrogenic ovulatory dysfunction from synthetic exogenous ovarian steroids: a deliberately induced state of ovulatory dysfunction characterized by secondary hypo-estrogenism (native estrogens), secondary hypopituitarism, exogenous synthetic estrogen toxicity, tendency towards induced neoplasms, dysfunctional menopause, cardiovascular derangements, and secondary infertility, etc....

Feel free to add......

Open any textbook of toxicology and you will see there a list of ingested or exposure-related agents which cause secondary anovuluation or ovarian malfunction (see this for example:http://www.drugs.com/news/gleevec-may-disrupt-ovarian-function-11255.html). How is this any different just because doctor and patient both think it good? In fact if intentional isn't it far worse and means the addition potentially the psychological condition of wanting treatment for a body function one finds undesirable or inconvenient, which is worse then merely being passively poisoned? This was asked somewhere in the letter to the BMJ after Ryder's famous BMJ 1993 article on NFP (can't find the passage just now). It went something like this: When people think they need to frustrate a normal healthy body function to be happy, they are in need of counseling not pills!"

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

How about "ICK" (Iatrogenic Contraceptive Kraziness)!!

To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 2:26 PMSubject: Re: Viagra versus the birth control pill

No you are perfectly right in all respects.

You know, if we really want to be completely honest with ourselves as a group, shouldn't we define more precisely the pathological state of being on oral contraceptives for birth control purposes, and give it a name?

After all, the provision of oral contraceptives as a way to deliberately induce ovulatory dysfunction is or can be considered a form of iatrogenic endocrine dyscrasia, a form of induced or iatrogenic secondary anovulatory state. As such it should be a syndrome! Why should we be living according to the definitions of confused MDs who have forgotten the difference between good medicine and bad medicine, or to recall St. : "... they have exchanged the truth for a lie".

So, here goes: ICD 628.9A, called "iatrogenic ovulatory dysfunction from synthetic exogenous ovarian steroids: a deliberately induced state of ovulatory dysfunction characterized by secondary hypo-estrogenism (native estrogens), secondary hypopituitarism, exogenous synthetic estrogen toxicity, tendency towards induced neoplasms, dysfunctional menopause, cardiovascular derangements, and secondary infertility, etc....

Feel free to add......

Open any textbook of toxicology and you will see there a list of ingested or exposure-related agents which cause secondary anovuluation or ovarian malfunction (see this for example:http://www.drugs.com/news/gleevec-may-disrupt-ovarian-function-11255.html). How is this any different just because doctor and patient both think it good? In fact if intentional isn't it far worse and means the addition potentially the psychological condition of wanting treatment for a body function one finds undesirable or inconvenient, which is worse then merely being passively poisoned? This was asked somewhere in the letter to the BMJ after Ryder's famous BMJ 1993 article on NFP (can't find the passage just now). It went something like this: When people think they need to frustrate a normal healthy body function to be happy, they are in need of counseling not pills!"

Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell)

(FAX)pedullad@...

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Ha Ha love it!!

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

Viagra versus the birth control pill

Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans.

Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not.

Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

I totally agree! Sandrock, CNMConnected by DROID on Verizon Wireless Viagra versus the birth control pill Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on "The View" because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

There is very little evidence in the literature that estrogen has any positive effect on female libido.  It can improve vaginal lubrication and diminish other menopausal symptoms and this improved sense of well being could lead to improved libido.  As for testosterone the literature is conflicting; some women do get improvement of libido and most do not.  There is only one proprietary product for women containing estrogen and testosterone and one can have it compounded and use it “off label†but it is not approved by the FDA for treating decreased libido in women and many women do not see this improved libido and get masculinizing side effects.Les Ruppersberger, D.O. From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 11:48 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Re: Viagra versus the birth control pill sorry, didn't explain myself right but thank you Hanna and Dom for your prompt replies. As a family doctor, when a man comes in for decreased drive or related complaints, i will begin by checking a testosterone level. If it is low, i begin with testosterone replacement, and invariably they are helped by the testosterone, but may still want the viagra or cialis to improve their ability to perform with their spouse. Again unrealisic explanations and the perpetuation of youth come to mind here. Hanna's previous comments on estrogen and osteoporosis and the whole role of these drugs in aging process from previous posts are also on my mind. If we consider that if a postmenopausal woman came in for decreased libido, a physician may check an estrogen level, or a testosterone level, or they may just assume that these were going to be low, and they may offer estorgen HRT (hormone replacement therapy) with or without testosterone and either with or without progesterone (depending on if she has a uterus or not). So, until this point, both arguments are parallel. We could use estrogen to help the woman's decreased drive, and we could use testosterone to help the man's decreased drive. Since viagra is not being used currently for women's decreased drive, we do not currently offer that. Now, oral contraception is not being used to replace anything missing in the woman, and in fact, shuts down the woman's fertility system and would in fact cause a decrease in libido from the effects of the SHBG on the free testosterone levels. So, if you correctly follow this argument, O'Reilly's comparing viagra to the birth control pill is indeed not apples to apples, and indicates that viagra helps replace what has normally diminished in the man but that the birth control pill harms or shut down what is present in the woman and indeed goes a step further and causes a loss of something that was previously there (fertility and libido). Furthermore, we could argue whether we as society think it is healthy to perpetuate hormones on older people into their later years. Clearly for women, postmenopausal HRT has caused an increase in breast cancer. Testosterone replacement can accelorate occult prostate maligancies as well. If you see an error in my logic, please let me know. Thanks to all, rebecca To: nfpprofessionals Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:37 AMSubject: Re: Viagra versus the birth control pill But viagra is a pill to correct a medical condition!!! -- it's a phosphodiesterase inhibitor that works on the local vasodilator systems to correct erectile dysfunction. In a different form the very same drug is also a treatment for primary pulmonary hypertension and most often, ironically, is used for women in that condition. I say " ironically " because without the drug company developing it for ED it likely never would have been available for the many very sick women who need it for their pulmonary circulation. No misogyny or chauvinism here -- it really is a medial treatment. Now of course it can and probably often is abused, but that's a different issue right? So are narcotics,muscle relaxants, sedatives, anxiolytics, etc., etc., so we ought not let opponents make silly arguments. If that were the primary objection it would also seem to invalidate for them any recourse to the need for " emergency contraceptives " because that depends on not being " abused " in their minds right? Thomistically speaking, everything is in the details and distinctions, so we need to keep apples apples and not pears. And -- even more irony (is it a full moon today?) -- if anyone wanted to argue that men abuse the drug and that's why the drug company cravenly made it available in the first place, while I wouldn't disagree, I'd have to point out that contraception has been the single most influential factor in the " pornographying " (recreationalizing) of sex in the first place. The other reason it's a dumb argument I think, is it's not even properly speaking a " feminine " argument at all. Can you imagine all these women out there upset that men are able to have so much sex? Does that even sound rational or womanly?Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell) (FAX)pedullad@... Viagra versus the birth control pill Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on " The View " because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Function. Viagra assists with the function and operation of the body as it was designed. The Pill impedes and interferes with the function and operation of the body as it was designed. Ad majorem Dei gloriam, Mike DayDirectorMarriage and Family Life/Respect LifeDiocesan Center for Family Lifewww.dcfl.org From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:12 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Viagra versus the birth control pill Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on " The View " because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca

[Guest guest]

Sorry, it looks like everyone else already did an outstanding job replying. I’m a bit behind with my emails… :-) Ad majorem Dei gloriam, Mike DayDirectorMarriage and Family Life/Respect LifeDiocesan Center for Family Lifewww.dcfl.org From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of BameSent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 10:12 AMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Viagra versus the birth control pill Dear friends, O'Reilly was embarrassed on " The View " because he tried to argue that Viagra was a pill for a medical condition and covered in most health plans. The View commentators rightly tore that argument to shreds. They pointed out to him that vasectomies have long been offered on insurance plans. Does anyone have any ideas of how viagra IS different from the birth control pill. You see the hook in this whole thing - the pro-choice feminists want to make the argument that if something is for men it gets covered, but if something is for women, it does not. Could we debate how the viagra vs the pill argument is flawed? Blessings, rebecca