Forget over the counter, give us the pill for free

bec says:

06:36am | 05/12/11

Agreed. And when someone develops contraceptive pills for dudes, I hope that is equally free.

Erick says:

07:40am | 05/12/11

Contraceptive pills and implants for men are safe and effective, and have been successfully tested for decades. I’m beginning to wonder why they haven’t been made available to the public, despite their proven performance.

Dan says:

08:26am | 05/12/11

And why stop at contraception? Give us a home and a car and a TV and a new lounge set and….

Buy your own contraceptives. Its not societies responsibility - its yours!

maus says:

08:32am | 05/12/11

Condoms are available for free, from a wide variety of business and organisations.

Tom says:

08:34am | 05/12/11

What about free prostitutes for Aussie males?

jf says:

08:34am | 05/12/11

Why stop at condoms. Let’s make everything free. After all, why should that Gail Kelly have to pay for her own needs.

Direct says:

08:55am | 05/12/11

I like how you put the word burden in quotes, TChong. It’s interesting that having a range of choices when it comes to contraception and being in total control of reproductive rights is considered a burden.

IA says:

09:15am | 05/12/11

@Dan, I would make a terrible parent. I’m not financially or emotionally stable enough to have a child. Luckily, what I am is sensible enough to know that I would make a terrible parent and to bring a life into this world would be more of a burden on society, than a blessing. So, I use the Pill. It does effect me and I’m sure it’s not wholly good for me. All I ask, is that you reward my sensible choice. Not fully free, but subsidise it. The way you reward the less sensible choices of those who don’t think of whether they’ll be good parents or not.

@Tom. I don’t know what you think the Pill does, but it doesn’t guarentee sex. If it did, they’d already have one for men, I’m sure.

Mark says:

09:21am | 05/12/11

Make everything free! We pay taxes to the government and we wouldn’t be able to unless we eat food, so all food should be free! Oh wait, only food for women should be free, as should houses, clothes, cars, appliances. By not making these things free, women are being discriminated against. Women should be paid a billion per year and get free chocolate. Any man who does not agree hates kittens and clubs baby seals.

Kika says:

10:06am | 05/12/11

I agree. All contraception should be free. @ Erick - I don’t know, it’s strange. It makes sense. If both partners are on their respective pills this would be fantastic. It would prevent men from being able to be trapped by women into having children when they don’t want to, and women can share the burden of contraception with their partner. I checked the QLD Health website then. It said that the tests showed 0 pregnancies amongst the trials, but more trials are required. 

I wonder what the concern is? Perhaps the top up of progesterone is the one they need to keep a watch on because I didn’t think men have any normal level of progresterone in their bodies in any other normal state.

PsychoHyena says:

10:30am | 05/12/11

@Erick, actually it is a pure case of women not being happy with it, I can’t remember the actual figures but more women were against men having an oral contraceptive that they couldn’t see in effect than women supporting it. As a result the drug companies said “there is no market for it”, despite a large number of men actually wanting it.

Matthew says:

11:09am | 05/12/11

Wow, Erick didn’t even point out the clear discrimination in providing females with something for free and not males.

Making the pill free would cause more people to use that over condoms as a form of contraception and would possibly cause an increase in STDs.  Of course that’s based on no facts whatsoever but I’m sure young, naive, 15 year olds would think they’re safe by using the pill (if they even do anything at all that is).

If the pill is to be made free than condoms need to be as well.  But where do you draw the line?  Next it’s pain killers should be free, asthmas medication should be free, so should high blood pressure tablets, etc…

Kika says:

11:24am | 05/12/11

PsychoHyena - not true at all. Clinical trials are continuing. I am imagining that the long term use of men on progesterone should be subject of study. In case you are not sure, progesterone is hormone produced by the body when you are pregnant. Given no man to date has had a baby, it would be worth studying long term progesterone effects in men, I daresay./

neo says:

11:40am | 05/12/11

Condoms suck, I wouldn’t use them even if they were free. Talk about a thrill kill. Sleep with trust worthy people whom you know and you won’t have any problems.

Bring on the free pill though, and the free hormone rings too, some girls prefer them cause they forget to take pills every day.

void says:

12:07pm | 05/12/11

Condoms aren’t free simply because they have the capacity to provide some form of entertainment (ie. blowing them up and letting them fly around the room).  And, as we all know, good entertainment should never be free, unless it’s for cats and the entertainment is a discarded shipping box or shopping bag.

Lilly says:

12:14pm | 05/12/11

Dear neo,

Condoms might be a thrill-kill to some extent but there are people out there who cannot physically tolerate any artificial hormones if they don’t want to run around like a homicidal *itch from hell the entire time. Trust me, I’ve tried most of them and none of them works for me.

Now, if you then, like me, have a husband/partner who will not let the GP come within five yards of his family jewels with anything remotely sharp, you have no other option than using condoms unless you’re happy to pop out one baby after the next or decide to go celibate. None of them are valid options for me, so, bring on the little rubber thingies.

neo says:

12:36pm | 05/12/11

Lilly,

Yeah, unfortunately hormones aren’t for everyone, just like delicious peanuts.

You can always pull out, it is risky, but so far so good for me

Erick says:

12:44pm | 05/12/11

@lily - Women have far more contraceptive options than that. There’s the diaphragm, IUDs, and tubal ligation just for a start.

It’s only men who have to choose between condoms, surgery or celibacy.

Kika says:

12:51pm | 05/12/11

Neo - don’t even ‘trust’ those you do trust. I bet half of all babies are made because the woman ‘accidentally’ forgets about her pill.  I have been told by my mother and all my aunties to do that to have a baby. These are middle aged women who have tried and tested the old “OMG the pill didn’t work!” thing on their husbands. Their husbands trusted them, and believed them!

Dan says:

01:21pm | 05/12/11

@IA - these are still all your problems. I made a sensible choice at lunchtime - I bought a salad instead of the hamburger I wanted. Where is my reward from you?

I don’t believe in subsidising anyone’s stupid choices, but agree that we do already. If I could vote for a party that provided help to those who are severely disadvantaged, opportunities for all and self-responsibility for adults who fail then I would. That party does not exist unfortunately.

neo says:

02:25pm | 05/12/11

Haha, good point Kika! I meant the trust thing more to do with STDs, but you made me think about the other trust issue. I’ll have to weigh up the pros and cons I guess :(

IA says:

02:48pm | 05/12/11

@Dan, here’s the thing….My problem, is your problem. But it’s not apparent to you, yet. I only hope that when it does become apparent, there will be steps in place to make those sensible choices all the more attractive, to people who aren’t as sensible as me.

And bravo on the salad….Though, unless you eat it every day at the same time for 28 days straight and then punch yourself in the stomache….It’s really not quite the same thing. Still kudos!

SI says:

02:49pm | 05/12/11

For everyone whom is trying to compare companies whom distribute free condoms with any connotation that the pill should be given for free, note the reason condoms are given for free, which is normally to protect from aids and other like diseases, it has nothing to do with contraception.

The Civet says:

03:26pm | 05/12/11

SI is perfectly correct in that condoms are used to prevent diseases like AIDS. I have more than one article showing where the Catholic church has told its acolytes-in some of the most poverty stricken countries on this planet-that condoms should not be used ‘because the latex is constructed in the manner of threads of fibre, and all the spermatoza get through this latex.’

One prince of the Church, the present head of the Catholic church, one South American bishop and one bishop from Africa are indicted by their own words.

Anyway all practising members of the Catholic church should refrain from telling the rest of the community of their moral duties while the Catholic Church refuses to address the world wide scandal of priests buggering small children.

Dry spell says:

08:07pm | 05/12/11

@ Tom: Only if there are frree prostitutes for women

Kate says:

08:07am | 06/12/11

What about people like myself, i take the pill not for contraception but for treatment for polycystic ovaries and endometriosis - i sure a hell dont want kids right now but if i dont take the pill now when i do want them i wont be able to have them

Old Cobber says:

11:22am | 07/12/11

And another thing;  The misery of suffering and and pain due to starvation,wars,greed,hoplessness and deprivation could be solved in a generation or two by the Pope and other minipulators decreeing free contraception to all——now that’s true empathy and love of your fellow man.

Sammy says:

07:22am | 05/12/11

You’re entirely right about the process of going to the doctor being more than just getting the script. Blood pressure generally gets checked each time you need a new script and sometimes it needs adjusting. Different pills are better for different things, whether it’s a young teenager with acne to someone requiring it more as a contraception. Not to mention that if one pill doesn’t actually work for you your doctor has to work out why and then prescribe a better one, whether it be stronger or just plain different.

Don’t take the process of seeing the doctor away, it’s just a recipe for disaster!

John Smythe says:

09:28am | 05/12/11

I agree with you Tani, but stepping back from the immediate topic at hand, think of all the potential “unwanted” pregnancies this act may save. Add those to preventing (not appropriate word I’m sure but…) abortions, or, projecting further down the line, increased burden on said welfare?

Boofy says:

11:39am | 05/12/11

Think about the female lives you WOULD save getting checked by the doctor which is exactly what happened to me - I had blood clots on the lungs formed by the pill - potentially fatal if I had left it longer…...a pharmacist cannot detect these things.  I’d still be happy to pay for the pill and see a doctor if it meant it was going to save my life.

Em says:

12:40pm | 05/12/11

Checked by the doctor? Which doctor? Where? Certainly none of the quacks in ANY of the medical centres in my area. I waltz in, cough a bit and ask for a med cert. I get one. 

Similarly, when my pill script runs out, I end up back at the local GP, smile and ask for a refil.  Does he ask me questions about any side effects that I might have experienced? Nope. Does he take my blood pressure? Nope. Does he check to make sure that I am taking them correctly? Nope again.  All of these things a doctor is supposed to do because the pill can be pretty darned harmful if you’re one of the unlucky and yet the last time I as actually checked over for a script renewal was many years ago. At the moment I walk in, tell them what I need and walk out three seconds later. 

Doctors don’t have any involvement in the process now so why not allow Pharmacists to sell over the counter? At least they ask the questions!!!! (Tried getting some Nurofen Plus or Caneston recently?)  And I don’t want it to be free. It means that no one can point the finger at me and say that I am being subsidised for my choices of lifestyle by someone else.

Seline says:

01:10pm | 05/12/11

that’s a more sensible suggestion Tani or maybe just make it a year long prescription or something like that.  Or after a certain age you get it over the counter.  I feel most women are educated enough by about 25 to make a smart decision where the pill is concerned. 

Making contraception easier to get hold of is good for society.  It might even have a healthy effect on families by creating less broken homes from one night stands and more united homes from careful planning of bring a new life into this world.  Do we really need more girls in this world who feel that their only career path is to get knocked up by the richest man she can find?  I unfortunately live in an area where this is the sad reality for so many girls and they are robbed of aspiring to be something more than a drain on society.

Nina says:

02:48pm | 05/12/11

Agreed.

What a ridiculous suggestion.

Rachel says:

07:07am | 05/12/11

shouldn’t you be off campaigning for the GOP in some right wing southern state?

also, how do you get up in the morning swaddled in so much hate for women?

Jotun says:

07:08am | 05/12/11

Wait a second though, Erick.
There is an awesome benefit to the pill being free and widely taken by women. See if you can think of it!

I, for one, am looking forward to a condom-reduced future.

bec says:

07:17am | 05/12/11

Er, logically it would be a method of returning and saving *more* tax dollars to (dude) payers by virtue of saving money. A couple of hunjy for the pill each year beats the five thou to subsidise a new plasma screen, the thousands of dollars for employment of social workers to deal with the inevitable fallout of children born into homes unable or unwilling to support them, and the long-term flow-on costs of cycles of poverty being repeated.

But no. Apparently *logic* and long-term thinking were not in the MRA newsletter this week…

Sammy says:

07:26am | 05/12/11

Jotun, the pill shouldn’t take the place of condoms in any situations. The pill doesn’t protect against STI’s. And even in committed relationships that’s still an issue.

I don’t think it needs to be free either, what makes this medication any more important that any other. The pill is a choice, how about looking at making meds that are “compulsory” for some individuals though no fault of their own free first?

Fiona says:

07:29am | 05/12/11

Why are you blaming women for this one? Come on, hop off your high horse for once. Women do pay a lot more than men for our reproductive and sanitary items and have done with money we’ve earned for years. I think it’s not likely this will pass anyway. Just quietly, I’d rather condoms were free anyway, that way both genders could get them.

Erick says:

07:38am | 05/12/11

@Rachel - I’m simply suggesting that female adults should pay for their own optional items, like male adults do. It’s called equality.

Why do you hate equality so much?

@Jotun - It may have its benefits, but it isn’t “free” and it still represents another benefit to women at the expense of men.

Tubesteak says:

07:45am | 05/12/11

Rightly said, Erick. Wasting more money on more free stuff is not what we should be doing.

Jotun
The pill doesn’t protect you from STDs.

Sarah says:

07:46am | 05/12/11

Erick, doesn’t it advantage both genders in a lot of instances? Or do you hate men who have sex with women as well?

ShamWow says:

07:49am | 05/12/11

Remove the parts about feminism and men’s taxes it’s a good argument. Why does the pill need to be free? Making the drug easily accessed is a great idea but we don’t need more govt. handouts, our taxes can be used better elsewhere.

Stuart says:

08:22am | 05/12/11

Jotun - really you cant wait to have unprotected sex with women who sleep around so much they must take the pill so they dont need a paternaty test should they fall pregnant. awesome good luck to you.

Tim says:

08:32am | 05/12/11

Rachel,
Pointing out facts isn’t hatred of women.

Erick says:

08:59am | 05/12/11

@Fiona - I’m not blaming women. I’m blaming feminists. Please learn to read.

@Sarah - There may be advantages for both sexes, but there are also costs. Nothing is really “free”. Why is it so important to spend taxpayers’ money on this, rather than something else?

@Tim - Whenever I suggest that women should be treated the same as men, I get hysterical responses about how I “hate women”. That says something about the way men are treated, doesn’t it?

Elizabeth says:

09:07am | 05/12/11

Women don’t benefit from all of this extra spending on screening programs - our cervical screening program is a dinosaur and seriously over-screens, which means we have a 77% lifetime risk of referral for a cancer with a lifetime risk of 0.65% - it’s disgraceful that our doctors have allowed this program to remain unchanged and they get target payments for over-screening their patients. (PIP scheme set at 65% of eligible patients) These programs are loaded with political and vested interests as well….so we have a 26 pap test program while the Finns and Dutch have 5 to 7 test programs, self-test pap and HPV kits and the Dutch are moving to 5 hrHPV primary tests - this means far less testing and much less over-treatment.The UK have also scaled back screening to better protect the more than 99% who can never benefit from testing. A rare cancer has been turned into an industry of over-treatment. Our program must be more than a decade behind the evidence and was always excessive - apart from unnecessarily worrying and harming women, it’s also vastly more expensive than it needs to be…our breast screening program also has a cloud over it - over-diagnosis is a hidden and serious concern and the benefits of the program are debatable - more research shows the fall in the death rate is about better treatments, and not screening.
Prostate screening has serious problems as well - it causes huge over-diagnosis, so be careful wishing for that program. In the States where it’s pushed, men are being left incontinent and impotent after unnecessary treatments.
I believe screening has been oversold to us and is more likely to harm us. If you test, make sure it’s an informed decision and that means doing your own research - sadly, we can’t trust our doctors to give us balanced advice.

Anon says:

09:14am | 05/12/11

Sammy - for some of us in the community the pill is a life saver, and a compulsory medication. If you are a woman with a blood coagulation disorder or a gynaecological condition, the pill controls when, for how long and how heavy your periods are, which drastically reduces the chances of needing a partial or full blood transfusion when we have our period. Without the pill, I wouldn’t have been able to complete my degree or hold down a full time job. I’d probably be unemployable, and stuck on a disability support pension. I realise for most people it’s just a convenient contraceptive, but for me and others like me, it really is a life saver.

Kika says:

10:15am | 05/12/11

Jotun - Just because a girl is on the ‘pill’ doesn’t mean she’s taking it. I wouldn’t be taking off the condom so quickly if you really don’t want to be a Dad. Don’t believe me, it happens. Pretty much all my cousins and me were conceived by my mum and aunties convincing their men that they were ‘safe’.

jodi says:

11:53am | 05/12/11

Erick - sexism is out darling - get with it! And while we are at it - men earn more than woman because there is no equality in Australia - so you get off your little high horse and find out the facts before you mouth off. Did you not realise that contraceptives advantage BOTH men and woman - would you prefer that the poor woman you sleep with get pregnant? You’ll be forking out a lot more money then - for maintenance. It is not a feminist issue at all - it is an issue for men and woman - it takes two remember - or did you not know that? Why should woman pay for you to have safe sex??

Kait says:

11:56am | 05/12/11

It could be argued though that by providing free contraceptive pills, there would be less unwanted pregnancies meaning fewer men having to support unplanned children. I know which one I would rather pay taxes for.

kate says:

12:31pm | 05/12/11

Im a young professional woman and i agree equality has gone too far and we are now over compensated for so much it’s crazy.

Direct says:

12:55pm | 05/12/11

“Why should woman pay for you to have safe sex??”

If I’m having sex with a woman on the pill, she isn’t paying for me to have safe sex, she is paying for the part of conception she is responsibility for, namely what goes on in her own body. Your body, your choice remember?

Budz says:

01:09pm | 05/12/11

@jodi: Saying men earn more than women because there is inequality from employers is like saying women live longer than men because there is inequality from doctors.
There are a lot of other things such as career choices in terms of areas they choose to go to and also taking time off work to have kids then returning to work part time that leads to these differences in earnings through a life time.

Kika says:

01:11pm | 05/12/11

Direct - so what steps are you taking to make sure you are doing your bit? Assuming you don’t want to have a child either one would assume you are taking steps as well to prevent having a kid. Remember, no semen = no baby.

Wynston Cruso says:

03:34pm | 05/12/11

I always love how the so called counter arguments to Ericks posts, if anything, add even further credibility to his argument. I guess it just goes to show that some people will always be more equal than others….

You wanted equality, you got it, pay for your own shit. Of course I see the benefits to men also, but how is this different from condoms which a man has to pay for? Not to mention the number of sexually inactive women I know who take the pill for the other alleged benefits. Spen it on something we all get something out of. I’m assuming gay couples aren’t exempt from paying more tax for this waste.

I don’t recall Erick ever having said he hates women and it’s this kind of ignorance that you typically see in response to his posts that simply prove his point. It would be funny if it weren’t so damn frustrating.

DJ says:

04:44pm | 05/12/11

I only pay about $25 for 3months supply of the pill, so Im not really worried about that. Its the $50-60 for my asthma reliever that I irk about!!

Annie says:

05:00pm | 05/12/11

Erick - Your argument for why the pill shouldn’t be free is just silly. Men pay more taxes than women, so men are essentially the only ones paying for this. Of course, because the taxes women pay only go towards women’s things, like roads, healthcare and tax cuts for businesses. *rolls eyes*  Seriously, get over your hatred towards women. It’s messing up your ability to form an actual logical argument.

For the record - I don’t support giving the pill out free.

Jen says:

05:01pm | 05/12/11

Because it would prevent babies!

We’d spend less money subsidising the pill than we would on the thousands of unwanted babies

Also since there is no male alternative, why should women have to pay for the contraceptive in the relationship? Is that so wonderfully one sided?

Cimbom says:

05:03pm | 05/12/11

Well said, Anon. I get crippling period pains and would not be able to work in any half-decent job without the pill. It’s certainly no luxury “optional extra” for me.

SpagBol says:

06:10pm | 05/12/11

@Erick, you are really just a monster of contradiction…. okay, fuck it, you’re right, we women are conspiring to make your life miserable; you and anyone else foolish enough to have a penis. THERE! I let the secret out - you can stop harping on about it now. Please.

I’ll advise the Chief High Priestess (of Women Who Want Everything, Yet Refuse To Do Anything For It) that you’re onto us, so we can start to focus our attention elsewhere. Curse you, Erick, for putting our dastardly scheme back so many years with your persistence! You shall rue the day!

*shaking fist*

Erick says:

06:29pm | 05/12/11

@SpagBol - None of your words make any sense, or have any relevance to the topics of discussion here.

Can’t you do better?

TChong says:

08:04am | 05/12/11

they sounded like class.

Brett says:

09:50am | 05/12/11

Why make the pill free, make the implant free instead. Good call Super D.

Cutting out the doctor would save the government money anyway, as they wouldn’t have to pay for doctors visits through medicare for what is essentially a useless 2 minute visit to get a script written.

I can’t believe the condom story… man that is bad. I would leave her in a heart beat if that’s how it was, or demand nightly blow jobs instead.

Mahhrat says:

09:59am | 05/12/11

@Brett:  I’d have left her at the checkout.

SimonFromLakemba says:

12:20pm | 05/12/11

@Mahhrat

Give her $2 for the bus home

Kika says:

12:57pm | 05/12/11

Rubbish - administrative errors. The oldest trick in the book!

bec says:

07:20am | 05/12/11

Help for the feckless: anyone who uses the word “recreational” immediately before the word “sex” is someone who can count the number of times they’ve had it on one hand.

ts says:

07:21am | 05/12/11

totally agree

when money is being spent (wasted) on baby bonuses, the single feminist sisterhood are at the head of the queue arguing that taxpayers should not subsidise lifestyle choices.

Cam says:

08:24am | 05/12/11

“recommend that people take more responsibility for their own actions? Now THAT’S a message we younger generations don’t hear much of these days. “

Amen to that. These days all we hear about is how the government should be doing this that and the other thing to make up for people not wanting to deal with something or pay for something themselves.

Take responsibility for yourselves people, why do you think the government is turning this country into more and more of a nanny state?

No the pill and feminine hygiene products should NOT be “free”, they are all optional to use (look up moon-cup for a cheap alternative to tampons). Pregnancy is the least of the problems with unprotected sex and as others have said - free condoms is a much better option than the pill.

Aaron says:

08:40am | 05/12/11

And yet babies act suspiciously like a biological parasite when in the womb! Just thought I’d stick that out there. I do agree with you though.

Mark G says:

08:40am | 05/12/11

Gherkin,

Yep you pretty much summed it up.

MarkS says:

08:42am | 05/12/11

Free? No you wish me to pay for it. I am already paying for your children & if did not even get to enjoy halping to make them. But at least the children one day will be the doctors etc I will need.

Now you wish me to pay for you not to have children. Give you a deal, I will pay for your pill if & only if I am having sex with you. Otherwise bleep off thief.

Erick says:

09:05am | 05/12/11

Good to see that Bec has been reading the manual of feminist shaming tactics.

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.  Examples:

“I bet you are fat and ugly.”
“You can’t get laid!”
“Creep!”
“Loser!”
“Have you thought about the problem being you?”

Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.”  The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Gherkin says:

09:41am | 05/12/11

@bec Oh, how mortifying to be accused of not sleeping around. As if it were a crime or faux pas to make sexually responsible decisions.

It’s like a morbidly obese person saying to a someone with a regular fitness regimen: “gee, you really need to eat more cheeseburgers…”

PsychoHyena says:

10:38am | 05/12/11

@bec… hmmm I occasionally use the word recreational immediately before sex and I think you might need to talk to my wife because I think she’s been imagining all the times we’ve had sex.

bec says:

04:18pm | 05/12/11

Erick, you’re once again projecting like an iMax. Prove in my comment that I called the OP ugly. I simply inferred that he was a fogy with an outdated idea of what sex is for. I’m sure there are probably twatwaffles who are perfectly conventionally attractive who think that sex is for nothing but babymaking.

Erick says:

06:36pm | 05/12/11

@bec - You are lying.

You clearly inferred that OP was someone “who can count the number of times they’ve had [sex] on one hand”.

That is a perfect fit to Code Tan: “The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.”

You know this, of course. The fact that you have to resort to an easily revealed lie delineates the poverty of your position.

Feminism is based on lies, as you have aptly demonstrated.

Alice says:

11:38am | 06/12/11

Yay! The first comment which makes sense.

The pill sucks and places the ‘burden’ of preventing pregnancy on the woman. Guess who designed the pill in the first place? Yep, a man.
The pill has allowed men to treat women with contempt, escape anything possible responsibility of parenthood and then when a woman doesn’t take one of the most dangerous medications on the register to prevent a naturally occurring phenomenon - fertility - it’s her fault!

As a young women, the pill represents to me another form of male subjugation.

Anubis says:

12:19pm | 06/12/11

@ Alice - what a deluded commentary you run there. Femenists of the past have referred to the pill as liberating (Germain greer is just one of them). It was a breakthrough that allowed women to be able to make choices about their sex life (particularly whether they wanted to indulge or not).

If it is all part of male designed subjugation of women just because it was creatred by a man (ably supported by a team of peers that included women BTW) then why don’t you follow your argument to the logical end and stop using anything and everything that was designed/created by a man and go and live in your imagined Amazon Eden where you won’t be troubled by anything male oriented.

Erick says:

12:37pm | 06/12/11

@Alice - Wow. What a perfect storm of feminist paranoia and man-blaming! I salute you.

“The pill sucks”

Actually the Pill provides yet another option for women who already have more options than men.

Men have condoms and surgery. Women have diaphragms, IUDs, the pill, tubal ligation, implants, RU486, abortion, and more!

Yet you whinge about it. Nobody is forcing you to take it.

“and places the ‘burden’ of preventing pregnancy on the woman.”

No it doesn’t. You don’t have to take the pill - you can make a man use a condom, or use one of the wide range of female options.

“Guess who designed the pill in the first place? Yep, a man.”

Ooooh, it’s all a great big conspiracy!

Almost everything that was ever invented, was invented by a man. It’s nothing unusual.

“As a young women, the pill represents to me another form of male subjugation.”

That’s because you’ve been brainwashed by feminism. In reality, the pill represents yet another choice for women who already have all the choices.

Al says:

07:27am | 05/12/11

And also considering the MANY ways that insurance companies can refuse coverage to people in the US, and that low income people are unlikely to have health insurance anyway, you end up with a system that allows those who can afford to pay, to receive it as part of their insurance benefits, and those who can’t afford insurance or have been refused insurance (unlike Australia, in the US they can simply refuse to insure you) still need to pay the full amount.
Anyone else see the problem with this?

bella starkey says:

07:47am | 05/12/11

I always thought it was odd that Private insurance covers viagra and not the pill.

Budz says:

09:02am | 05/12/11

@bella: Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition, not wanting to get pregnant is not.

bella starkey says:

09:26am | 05/12/11

I knwo the reasoning behind it, but its illogical.

Most doctors will write out expensive pill scripts for “acne” so they will be covered by insurance, because acne is a medical condition, apparently.

However as private health care do the paying of the baby having with the private hospitals and the obstetricians and the rest they would probably save a lot more by covering the pill.

Also, I would never claim to know the exact figures but a very big proportion of viagra use is a fair bit more “recreational” than it is therapeutic.

Direct says:

10:05am | 05/12/11

Good point, Bella. I wonder how much recreational viagra use would be needed if women didn’t expect boners on demand and actually put some effort into arousing men.

Facts says:

10:29am | 05/12/11

The government subsidises ‘private’ health cover here to the tune of 30% per member.

Kika says:

02:53pm | 05/12/11

Private health insurance is the biggest scam. If private health covers the pill watch all your premiums skyrocket. They aren’t charities you know. We all end up paying for it in the end.

I am going to scap mine next year. My husband needed to go to the emergency ward at the hospital because he sliced his ankle open. We were going to be sent to the private hospital for a surgeon to look at us, but when we called our health fund they told us that we would have to:-
1) Pay all up front fees ourselves
2) Submit a claim and have 2 doctors sign a form verifiying that his condition was not pre-existing (yeah he’s been walking around bleeding everywhere for 10 months) and
3) Wait 5 days to see whether they can reimburse us and even then we have no guarantee they will pay. The private hospital told us our health fund is a hit and miss, they’ve even seen them decline paying for people to have broken bones fixed.

What the heck do you have private hospital cover for if they can’t even guarantee you can see a doctor for an emergency situation like operating on a knicked artery??

sORRY, VENT OVER.

Angry Fat Bitch says:

12:39pm | 05/12/11

Your post is very hard to read. Too many exclamation marks. It makes the voice in my head raise its voice at the end of every sentence.

Anywho - “Once you have discussed the side effects just like any other medication with your doctor & local pharmacist, I guess it might be alright to get it over the counter” - this part I sort of agree with. If you have a note from your doctor to say you’ve used the medication before and it’s ok to continue its use then I see no reason to purchase some drugs over the counter. But I do think you need to first establish with a doctor that the pill is safe for you to use. We’re not talking about butter menthols here.

On that subject - can I get a similar note for my other medication? Seriously, I’ve been taking it since I was 18 but for some stupid reason I can’t get repeats on my script, so I have to go back to the doctor as often as once a month to get a new one. The pill I only needed a script once a year. Total drag.

Sheridan says:

11:53pm | 05/12/11

Problem is that health needs change.. I found out that the OCP I was on wasn’t suitable for me any more because it was exacerbating a neurological condition so I had to change it.. A pharmacist couldn’t tell me that so booking a doctors appointment once a year for a check up and getting a script filled at the same time isn’t so bad.. One can also develop DVTs, have a stroke, start going blind, liver damage, migraines etc.. It is a useful drug to lots of women but it’s not something that should be sold without a GP check up every 12 months..

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

06:36am | 06/12/11

Hi there,

You sound a little bit upset & angry to say the least!! To get the best information in a hurry, I would advise that you read between the lines, not the exclamation marks!!  I just like my work to be a little bit pretty & that is all. It actually makes it easier to read, don’t you think? 

Any other issues, I suggest that you take up with your local MP, not with me personally!!  I am sorry that I can not help you about all your personal problems. I just would like to know, why you chose this name in particular? I t has been very pleasant experience chatting with you. Surely, you know that being angry is not actually good for your health, unless you can come up with real solutions!!  Take care & bye for now. Best regards to your editors

Alicia says:

11:36am | 05/12/11

I agree, it’s not a financial burden. Until I was advised to go off the pill due to some underlying medical conditions, I was paying $14 for a four-month supply from the Chemist Warehouse. That was without any sort of concession to. I don’t know where people are paying more than that per month. Perhaps they need to change to a different pill, buy it from somewhere else if possible or consider an alternative method.

When I was younger and poorer I went to family planning for these things and it only costs something like $26 a year and the contraception was minimal cost - in fact it was something like $30 for the Implanon which was a three year solution. AND free condoms if you wanted them.

I hardly see this as a financial burden. I also think it’s dangerous to shift the responsibility to a pharmacist.

Redeker Plan says:

09:58am | 06/12/11

@Kate and Alicia.

Yes there are cheap brands of the OCP, but many women can’t take them due to the side-effects.  I’ve been on the Pill since I was 19, due to hideous menstrual problems that leave me unable to function (vomiting, curled up in the foetal position) for 3 or 4 days per month.  In that time (nearly 20 years) I’ve had to change brands about 7 times, as I seem to one of those unlucky women who cops whatever side effect is specific to individual brands, including weight-gain, acne that got WORSE, hormonal fluctuations that made my usual easy-going personality absolutely psycho, and for four memorable months, I was bleeding non-stop for 3 weeks out of 4. 

I have been on my current “new-generation” brand for 2 years now with no negative side-effects, but it’s nearly $80 for a 3-month supply from Chemist Warehouse.  I shudder to think what it would cost at a regular chemist.

I don’t agree that the Pill should be free (except to those from lower socio-economic circumstances)  However, I do believe that it should have standard pricing across all brands - $40 for 4 months sounds fair to me, $10 per month.  If you can’t as a working woman afford that then you have serious issues.

What should be changed is the GST on sanitary items - that was unfair when Howard introduced it, and it’s unfair now - Condoms are GST free, why not tampons, etc?

KateA says:

11:26am | 05/12/11

Kebabpete and all the other delightfully educated commenters here:
1)  The OCP is not a ‘recreational’ drug.  It is used to prevent pregnancy, and also to regulate the menstrual cycle, or to avoid menstruation in females in which it would be difficult to manage (those with severe disabilities etc). 
It has little to do with having ‘sex for fun’ as it does not protect against STIs.  It is used primarily by women in monogamous relationships.  Unless you are suggesting that married couples practice abstinence lest they end up with a dozen children - this seems to be a medication which helps families control their growth.  It is as much benefit to the husband as it is to the wife.  It has nothing to do with ‘self control’ as some IQ deficient poster mentioned below.

Why not complain about drugs for cholesterol or hypertension?  These are necessary primarily in people who haven’t looked after themselves properly.  In the same category should go all drugs for type 2 diabetes, lung cancer, emphysema and antibiotics for STIs.

I don’t have strong views on whether the OCP should be free, but it should be prescribed by a doctor given it’s propensity to interfere with other medications, to increase the risk of impaired liver function and thrombosis.

I am appalled by the general level of intelligence in the comments on The Punch - using the pill and tampons does not make you a man-hating, promiscuous feminist; it makes you a female.  But I’m guessing that’s too much for the Einsteins on here to comprehend.

Erick says:

12:51pm | 05/12/11

@KateA - The general level of intelligence on The Punch should appal you. That’s because most of us can see through your shallow insults and feminist bullshit.

Too bad, because you’re not going to convince anyone by lying to us about what we’ve said. Feminism has jumped the shark; it’s become plain and obvious discrimination against men - and more good people are waking up to it!

KateA says:

01:09pm | 05/12/11

Erick - I can’t really be bothered responding to you, given I see your drivel destroying all hope of a rational argument throughout The Punch.  However - can you point out what exactly in my post counts as ‘feminist bullshit?’  I like men, and I count them as my equals; but I think any thinking human being can see that contraception is an issue which is relevant to both men and women.

Erick says:

02:52pm | 05/12/11

@KateA - “I can’t really be bothered responding to you”

Yes you can. Another lie, right in the first sentence!

“can you point out what exactly in my post counts as ‘feminist bullshit?’”

Sure. Try this one: “using the pill and tampons does not make you a man-hating, promiscuous feminist;”

Nobody said that “using the pill or tampons makes you a man-hating, promiscuous feminist”. That’s just a lie you made up.

“it makes you a female”

More bullshit. Using the pill and tampons doesn’t make you a female; having two X chromosomes does.

What a stupid thing to say, from someone who presumes to put down the intelligence of others.

St. Michael says:

05:33pm | 05/12/11

“After visiting my friends in Germany, I have realized that the Germans are actually paying more for some medications, previously provided by the Nation Health Scheme!!  I was also very surprised to see that a simple medication produced by Bayer in Germany,  actually costs much less in some overseas countries!!”

This is called “capitalism”, also the “free market”.

The countries in which the drug is cheaper are the ones that have it.

Anon says:

11:04am | 05/12/11

Any of the cup based products available over the internet - I’ve had my DivaCup for almost ten years now, and it’s still just as good as when I bought it - and it cost me less than $20.

LGT? says:

12:15pm | 05/12/11

At what point did the GST cease being a goods and services tax and become a luxury item tax?

Angry Fat Bitch says:

12:53pm | 05/12/11

LGT - the day it passed government!

GST was left off some items that were deemed esseintials. Fresh foods like meat and carrots were classed as essentials, and made GST-exempt. So were condoms. But not sanitary products.

And our options are 1) use the sanitary products, for which we pay tax, 2) miss periods using the pill, which costs in the long run as you run out of pills faster, or 3) use a diva cup, but have you seen those things? Icky!

The Bunyip says:

03:54pm | 05/12/11

@AFB, ummm… no, meat and carrots were classified as fresh food.  Condoms were classified as a medical device.  Sanitary products are neither food nor a medical device (because having your period is not a medical condition).  Nothing was classified as “essential” because being an essential item makes no difference in the eys of the GST.

NJ says:

06:20pm | 05/12/11

Actually, menstrual (aka Diva) cups are not “icky”. They are a damn fine idea that have yet to be approved by the TGA for use in this country - that makes them medical now, doesn’t it? There are many versions available and I have been using one for 2 years now and can’t recommend them highly enough. Not only are they cost effective they are very eco-friendly and much healthier than inserting highly processed fibres into the female body. If fact, I find using mine a much better experience than pads or tampons. You actually see what you are passing and it isn’t litres, it’s only a few millilitres and doesn’t block the toilet system when you flush the contents! Should they be free? No. But they should be available in this country.

I also believe that women need to take responsibility for their health and go to a doctor that does practise medicine properly and take your blood pressure etc and talk things through with you. If they don’t, find one who does. My body is my temple and I look after it. No government is going to do that for me.

Direct says:

10:17am | 05/12/11

Especially considering that $79pm would most likely include a 30% federal government rebate claimed upfront and a public system that gives you more support than the average American would get from theirs.

protected says:

09:13am | 05/12/11

Thats right i got one too. its only about $35 and lasts for 3 years! its a little hurt but there is no chance of me forgetting to take a tablet one day and having an oops! it is even more effective when combining medicines ie antibiotics. instead of the one month it takes for the pill to kick in again, its only a week on the inplant. this is a more responsible method for me, but i think more serious talking need to happen between doctors and patients to inform them of long term reverable options.

RM says:

09:47am | 05/12/11

I had one of these, and unfortunately I was one of the few that had an extreme reaction.  It in effect gave me all the symptoms or going through menopause (I was 25) and gave me the lasting legacy of knowing what panic attacks are.  Approach with caution and inform yourself of the risks.

MishMash says:

11:39am | 05/12/11

As RM says - not everyone can have the implant.
It has taken my doctor and I 4 years to find a pill that does not make me ill. We started to lose hope with the pill so moved onto other forms, like the injections and implants. Gave the injections a go first - you have one every 3 months. I have never been so sick for 3 months. My weight plummeted drastically, I was constantly tired, anxious and could not stomach much food at all.
Based on that, my doctor said there was no way she even wanted to put me through the process of the implant.

Maybe it can be subsidised. Many other medications are.
And like mentioned a few times above, some women do need the pill not only as a contraceptive but also as medication to regulate acne, gyno issues etc.
Don’t go back to the 50’s and 60’s mentality of “only loose women take the pill” because that simply is not true.

Direct says:

10:15am | 05/12/11

There’s an assumption here that the men paying tax to fund the pills are also having recreational sex when that’s not necessarily the case. There’s also an assumption here that because women have been paying for their own contraception, that men haven’t been paying for theirs. If that was true, there would be no condom vending machines in male toilets at pubs and clubs. Additionally, if you ask most people want a man’s easily reversible and controllable contraceptive options beyond condoms and you’d get blank stares. You’re also overstating the effectiveness of condoms in both STD prevention and contraception. Ideally a combination of both makes sense and leads to each person paying for and taking responsibility for a form of contraception that they have control over.

Ultimately, given that it’s “your body, your choice” when it comes to children, it’s only fitting that it’s “your body, your cost” when it comes to contraception, but until men have other options when it comes to contraceptives and other options besides simply accepting the choices of women when it comes to reproductive rights, I think men have legitimate right to oppose bearing even more costs than they already do.

lol says:

09:01am | 05/12/11

hahaha… ‘the pill has always been used to control women’... you are crazy. i pity you. maybe if you stopped thinking of women as always being a victim then you would get on with your life and realise you are no more a victim than most men. honestly… womens issues are shoved down mens throats on a daily basis, yet very few women pay any attention to mens issues. women are adults, not babies. how about you act like one?

Rose says:

09:33am | 06/12/11

Men can only get Viagra or Cialis with a prescription and there are only 4 tablets in the pack. These medications are not on the PBS and cost between $60- $70 per pack. The pill can cost as little as $5.60 for a three month supply if you hold a concession card, it’s free if you reach the safety net!
No one is forcing you to have any medical tests that you don’t want, but you just seem to be anti-doctor and pro-the removal of health checks which, if you’re lucky end up being unnecessary but quite often allow people ton survive cancers simply because they were discovered early, before the patient became symptomatic, and are therefore treatable.

JTT says:

09:42am | 03/03/12

Rose, shop around, you’re being ripped off, there are lots of on line pharmacies that don’t require a script for Viagra and they’re cheap. You can get the Pill online now too. Forget the doctor and all the hassle and expense, get online.
It was harder for women, I think the Pill has been used to force women into the consult room and that visit has been and is still used by some doctors to pressure women into other things. I come from the era where you couldn’t get the Pill without a full gyn check, it was years later I found out all of it was completely unnecessary. I was relieved I didn’t give in to them, but still resent the fact the Pill wasn’t an option for me because of these medical barriers. I think the focus on women’s health is largely about profits, men are lucky they’re respected enough to be extended offers of this or that with plenty of information and not ordered into things or blackmailed into exams and tests. Things have improved, but there are still doctors who hold the Pill until women allow unnecessary exams and tests. I also think it’s risky to assume cancer screening and other checks are always a good idea, there is more and more evidence that says the benefits of these things have been exaggerated and the risks and harms hidden from us. I think these extra things should be our decision and only after we’ve had a chance to look at the evidence and decide for ourselves, I don’t want to be pressured into anything on-the-spot in the consult room. Recently I read an article by a doctor objecting to the government’s move to allow women to obtain a limited supply of the Pill over the counter because he uses the consult to do a breast exam and maybe a pelvic exam, that just shows there are still doctors doing completely unnecessary exams, it doesn’t take much to find that neither of those exams are recommended, they’re unhelpful. Doing invasive checks unnecessarily just deters some women from seeing a doctor. Of course, finding a doctor who is up to date, someone you can work with helps a lot, but I’ll still get some things on-line, it’s just much cheaper and more convenient.

kj_storm says:

01:12pm | 05/12/11

Nick while I don’t agree with your tone. I do agree with your point.

I personally take the pill for medical resons rather than contraception (though its always good to have a backup to the condoms). I don’t think that the pill should be free. I believe that people need to take responsibility for their actions and that the current support systems for people who really don’t know better or need assistance are sufficient. There are free sexual health clinics in most cities.

By the way if we include males in the certification process I think we have ruled out 85% of the Australian population.

AJ in Perth says:

01:40pm | 05/12/11

Nick, you’ve just given the best reason for making the pill available for free.  Because those that can’t afford it, definitely can’t afford to have children.

Sarah says:

10:19am | 05/12/11

Yeah I dread having to spend at least $70 for,
“I’d like my prescription renewed”
“Have you had any issues with the pill you’ve been on?”
“No”
Out the door in under two minutes.  But at the same time I understand why it has to be done, it is a medication that does affect your hormones.  It would just be nice if you only had to get the script once and then it would be your responsibility to go back to the doctor if you have any problems with it in the future.

EB says:

10:02pm | 02/03/12

I think more women are just getting the Pill while they’re overseas or using a couple of reliable on line pharmacies. Our GPs also get target payment for pap tests and use this consult to pressure women, some will even say it’s required for the Pill…that’s not true. Our pap test program is way out of date - be careful with it…women should be offered hrHPV primary triage testing or the Delphi Screener at 25 or 30 - pap tests should only be offered to HPV positive women and only 3 or 5 yearly from 25 or 30. Most women don’t even need pap tests, they’re negative for HPV, yet many Aussie women end up having 26 pap tests and huge numbers end up having unnecessary biopsies and over-treatment and that can damage your cervix leading to premature babies, infertility etc.
I can’t understand why our doctors want to exert so much control over women and keep the Pill on script, it should be easy to get the Pill because the consequences of tying it up are serious - unplanned pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, abortions and miscarriages - all of which carry lots of risk. I have never used the Pill because 20 years ago the requirements (that were not requirements at all) were off-putting - bimanual pelvic and breast exams and compulsory pap tests and there were few female doctors. I couldn’t face all that every year or two…and got the Pill on business trips overseas - over the counter. I always had my blood pressure taken by the pharmacist, but resented not being able to use a local doctor because of unnecessary, risky and unhelpful barriers.

RM says:

09:44am | 05/12/11

Did mummy leave little James unsupervised in front of the ‘puter?

Direct says:

09:01am | 05/12/11

You should bill the doctor for the time you spent waiting to see them.

Aaron says:

09:20am | 05/12/11

It’s called centerlink

Shannon says:

09:36am | 05/12/11

damnit.. peace…. of mind…

Sensiblegirl says:

09:48am | 05/12/11

I don’t agree for the pill being free, over the counter would be nice - but sanitary products (necessity in whatever form you use) should be subsidised in some form. We can’t actually do without it!

OchreBunyip says:

10:08am | 05/12/11

Should we subsidise deodorant, shampoo and soap as well? Some women just cannot help themselves, they are always looking for the free lunch. Equality is about paying your own way.

Lauren says:

10:18am | 05/12/11

Food is also not a luxury but a necessity.  So should that be tax-free and capped at cost too? What about home heating, basic clothing, shelter?

What a ridiculous argument which a lot of people seem to be making.  By your definition anything that is a ‘necessity’ should be free or untaxed.  Except that it’s not - things in life aren’t free - they have to be researched, developed, manufactured, resources are used etc.  Somebody has to pay - so why not the user?  Besides, if everything was made ‘free’, our taxes would have to be higher to pay for it, so you’d be paying anyway.  Like I said, nothing is free.

And like a lot of people have said, their life-saving medication is not free.  I’d rather money went to helping people pay for the medication that keeps their hearts beating and their insulin regulated and if that means I have to pay for my own Pill and my own tampons, then I’m pretty happy with that.

Carolyn says:

12:07pm | 05/12/11

@Lauren - fresh food is GST free, packaged foods are not. check your receipt from Coles: there should be an * next to the GST free items.

Observer says:

10:36am | 05/12/11

Okay +1ing yourself is COMPLETELY sad!

Observer says:

02:32pm | 05/12/11

@Observer

+1 to that!

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:41am | 05/12/11

What so the tax payer has to pay the baby bonus, maternity leave, child care family tax A and B etc when having a baby is your responsibility not the state’s.Scrap the baby bonus and other forms of family welfare and give out free contraceptives and vasectomies. Much cheaper for the state and taxpayer in the long run…..

Kika says:

10:12am | 05/12/11

You can always withdraw, that’s free… it’s a little harder to get our ovum out of the firing line, so to speak.

Markus says:

11:33am | 05/12/11

@Kika, not if you’re on top

Megs says:

11:42am | 05/12/11

Kika, the Rhythm method is also free and keeps that ovum out of the firing line.

Michael says:

10:19am | 05/12/11

Shaving is not a choice for the employed RM, many professions require that you come to work cleanly shaven thus making it a requirement of meeting the grooming standards of the position held.

The menstrual cycle of a female is a personal hygiene issue, ie don’t use sanitary products and so long as you don’t make a mess in the workplace no one will give a shit, ‘cept yourself of course.

The equal analogy would not be about shaving it would be about a natural bodily function like gas or relieving one’s self, a woman would not get told to shave the hair on her chin or upper lip, a man would have to shave the same on his face unless he was employed with the beard/moustache in the first place.

RM says:

11:23am | 05/12/11

A curious perspective Michael.  As long as I don’t ‘leave a mess’ in the workplace?  That’s a little difficult without sanitary products.  In fact, without sanitary products I would be leaving large blood patches on seats which I would think would constitute a workplace health and safety concern.  As far as a woman being told to shave a few stray hairs on her face, you’re right, she wouldn’t be told to do that.  Just as a man won’t be told to get rid of nostril or ear hair.

Alicia says:

11:39am | 05/12/11

I think you’ll find (at Coles at least) that you don’t pay the GST on these products. They changed it a few moons ago, not sure if they ever snuck it back on but they aren’t that expensive for something that happens (for most women) once a month.

Michael says:

12:04pm | 05/12/11

You moved the terms of reference, face is not ear or nostril. compare apples with apples. men do get told to shave the little bit of stubble some men have to shave twice a day because of it.

Some other people would make less mess than you in particular, maybe an older person has no flow at all, or someone uses implanon and doesn’t menstruate at all. So now you are back to your individual problem of personal hygiene, not a general issue for all women in the workplace.

RM says:

12:19pm | 05/12/11

thanks for the info Alicia.  It’s not so much the expenditure that annoys me, it’s the fact that the GST was placed on these products in the first place and not on such things as razors.  It just seemed to show a distinct lack of insight by (predominantly) male policy makers. By Michael’s reasoning, men should have GST free access to all grooming products under the guise of workplace requirements.  I think there would be a very valid case for discrimination if an employer could not provide valid reason for requesting an employee remove facial hair and appearance would not be considered valid.  Menstruating is the body emitting blood products whether I like it or not, a lot more tangible than Michael’s example of gas.  And as far as relieving oneself is concerning, workplaces provide toilet paper, FOR FREE.  If I chose not to wear sanitary products I am potentially exposing my fellow employees to those blood products.  I’m not man bashing and I’m not asking these products be made free, simply that it is in my opinion NOT a luxury item and therefore not subject to GST.  If that has indeed happenned it is an acknowledgement that it should never have been there in the first place.

Jess says:

12:43pm | 05/12/11

The GST was only applied to tampons, apparently they are not “essential” ... what a load of garbage.. if you want to do any sort of activity - walking, running, swimming, sports - tampons are a must! Remove all GST from these products!

Kika says:

01:06pm | 05/12/11

Hahahahah Michael… it doesn’t work that way! The older I’ve got the heavier my flow is. Hahahaha. And did you know once a woman IS older she doesn’t menstruate at all?

I agree with RM. If we didn’t use these products there would be a god awful mess to clean up. It’s not like a razor cut. We’re talking sometimes flow so heavy it’s hemorrhaging. I know of a lady who needs to use a pad and a tampon just to control the flow.

Ian1 says:

01:46pm | 05/12/11

GST on sanitary products is obviously a cash-cow for the Government coffers. 

They are definitely something which should be GST free. 

Perhaps the government could replace lost revenue in forward projections by reducing the subsidy on contraceptives?

A win/win for women.  A win for all women on the cost of sanitary products, a win for all women who believe subsidised contraception leads to the adoption of damaging attitudes towards sex.

Michael says:

01:57pm | 05/12/11

Yes sorry Kika i know that i don’t know how it really works, it’s not the same as shaving though for the reason i mentioned.

Your chair, your choice, your mess RM that’s fair.

RM says:

03:17pm | 05/12/11

Michael, It’s amusing that you think that just because you end your statement with ‘that’s fair’ that it makes it so.  You’ve fixated on the shaving issue as though I begrudge you your beloved GST free razors.  I don’t.  I was simply pointing what I believe to be the flawed nature of policy which determines GST exempt items, otherwise know as ‘luxury’ items. Most menstruating women would agree that it does not feel particularly luxurious to be wearing a sanitary product.  It doesn’t make me think, oh I AM doing well for myself aren’t I? when inserting a tampon.  As much as the ads depict us frolicking down the beach in bikinis on horseback, the reality is feeling like crap and dealing with an unpleasant bodily emission the best we can, and that is not choice.  I do feel it is’ fair’ to point out that shaving IS a choice (as detailed in prior post) and your reasoning about workplace grooming policies are a shallow argument as in Australia we have laws which protect people from this type of discrimination in the workplace.  By your own admission you ‘don’t know how it works’.  Perhaps you should sit down with a woman who is happy to speak openly about it.  Then see how she responds to the concept that sanitary items are a ‘luxury’.

Cam says:

10:54am | 05/12/11

“Tap water is free” - lol no it’s not. Ever hear of a thing called water rates? Although if you have only ever lived with your parents and rented i guess you can be forgiven for thinking it’s free. (The exception to this is if you have your own rain-water tank or bore)

I agree with your other points though - effectively NOTHING IS FREE, in the end somebody pays for it somehow.

Danielle says:

11:12am | 05/12/11

Haha I typed this in a hurry (I do not live with my parents, I pay a water bill every 3 months and it is usually tiny). But my point was, making condoms free (or as negligibly cheap as tap water) would be fine, but the pill (like bottled water) should then remain as a purchased item.

Danielle says:

10:52am | 05/12/11

Pretty valid questions I think. My personal reasons for the pill are that it shortens and regulates my period, and my partner and I cannot use condoms. It is also simply more reliable and condoms are a real hassle once you are in a steady relationship.

In the last few years my doctor and I discovered that I get a migraine (of the crippling sort) with every single period. I now manipulate the pill to never get a period, with the supervision and assurance of my doctor. Its a god send. Hardly good for my career (or women generally) if I have a monthly sick day becaus it is agony to lift my head off the pillow. I find it worth any risk to my long term reproductive health. In fact I think it helps me. Probably helps that I dont imagine ever wanting kids anyway

Kika says:

11:30am | 05/12/11

@Really? - My pill regulates my hormones which in turn regulates my volcanic acne. The one I am on now DOES decrease my libido. This is true. Completely 100% dead at the door. But that is because it regulates testosterone produced in my liver around period time and thus stops my skin from flaring up. I am married and am planning on having kids, but until then I’d rather be in control of my face and my hormonal cycles rather than the alternative.

Kate says:

12:15pm | 05/12/11

I like it because it regulates my cycle so I know when my period will come, pretty much down to the time of day. I have OCD so it’s pretty important to me that it doesn’t come as a shock and that I’m completely prepared for it. I also used to have really shocking mood swings whereas now I just get mildly depressed a few days before.

Also I’ve experienced condoms breaking before and that is not something I would ever want to happen again. It scared the shit out of me. I’ve been on the pill for seven years and fully expect to stay on it until I’m ready for kids.

really? says:

01:30pm | 05/12/11

Thanks for those comments - I hadn’t really thought much about the medical or period-control side of it, just the contraceptive side. I also hadn’t taken into account the issues that can arise with condoms!

It’s just not something that has really come up in the relationships I’ve been in, so I’m a curious about it all.

Jess says:

01:43pm | 05/12/11

Also, some of us are highly sensitive to the materials used in condoms. I for one was glad to say goodbye to condoms. Even the ones marketed as being hypo-allergenic etc affected me in a way that I didn’t wish to be affected!

Hannah says:

07:07pm | 05/12/11

PCOS (Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) is the most common female endocrine disorder and effects 5%-10% of reproductive aged women. I once had my period for almost 6 weeks, not heavy but enough that i was having to use sanitary items the WHOLE time, turns out it’s because my body has a crappy endocrine system The pill is the only thing i’ve ever been able to control a whole lot of symptoms that accompany it with and it’s what most doctors would recommend you use if you had PCOS.
Just another use for it to consider and yes while it does have some side effects and it worries me to be taking it long term, to me it seems better than the alternative a.k.a mood, period, cramps, headaches—being all over the shop.

Kika says:

03:05pm | 05/12/11

GP’s are bad when it comes to these sorts of things. If you find a women’s clinic they may be better at sorting these sorts of things out. I remember at my old family GP they really didn’t care much at all and just prescribed everyone the cheapest nastiest ones on the market. When I came back a few months later and my face was like one giant pizza all they said was “just give it a little bit more time and it should fix everything…”. They didn’t tell me I needed a lower dose because I had a high natural estrogen level anyway.

The Bunyip says:

01:01pm | 05/12/11

Exactly who considers them a luxury item?  They are taxed as a good (because they are a good) and they are priced at a level decided by the market.  They don’t attract any sort of luxury taxes so I don’t know where this “luxury” idea came from.  Sure, they may be necessary but so are plenty of things that aren’t subsidised, most notably food and dental care.

Mark says:

03:58pm | 05/12/11

@The Bunyip- Food and dental care doesn’t invoke the GST. Unlike sanitray items, Food was given exemption from the GST as it is a necessity. Therefore, any item with GST is considered non-essential AKA luxury.. duh

The Bunyip says:

04:57pm | 05/12/11

@Mark, your logic is flawed.  Food was given an exemtion as FOOD not as an essential item.  Dental care was not given an exemption as an essential item but as a medical service.  There are no exemptions for “essential items”.

Under your logic, is housing non-essential, aka a luxury?  Well, building a house is subject to GST.  By your definition it must be a luxury… duh.

GE says:

05:24pm | 05/12/11

When GST was first touted every Good and Service was going to be GST taxable however concessions had to be made to pass the legislation. These concession included exceptions for Medical related Services and Food.

All personal hygiene products;  soap, toothpaste,  shampoo, tissues, toilet paper as well as sanitary products are all treated the same and are GST taxable.

Should sanitary products not be taxed it would be the exception amongst personal hygiene products.

Erick says:

03:46pm | 05/12/11

@Maddy - “Tampons are expensive. Give us them for free.”

Cars are expensive. Give us them for free.

Kika says:

12:55pm | 05/12/11

Sanitary prodcuts with fancy features? Geez what are you using? Mine are all the same standard sort of thing!

The Bunyip says:

01:24pm | 05/12/11

Why does it seem unfair?  Condoms are used for disease prevention, while tampons are a personal item and are not for treating or managing a medical condition.

Do you think shaving equipment (eg: razors) should be GST free?  Or toilet paper?  How are they any different to sanitary products?  How about toothbrushes, toothpaste, dental floss, deodorant, soap, shampoo… where would it end?

Kika says:

02:45pm | 05/12/11

@TheBunyip - all those items listed are GST free. And if we don’t use sanitary items we WOULD be sick… with flies and maggots hanging around for fun too most likely.

The Bunyip says:

03:28pm | 05/12/11

Kika, I am afraid you are either lying or terribly misinformed.  All the items I listed are subject to GST.

Kika says:

11:33am | 05/12/11

Well considering most of them are also subsidised under the PBS they are already being paid for by the public purse already…

Kika says:

11:35am | 05/12/11

LOL - Yes!  The old Levlen is a common one doctors love to prescribe because it’s cheap, strong and effective! Doesn’t work for me though. Yaz is the only one that helps me. And yes I agree. I find it bizarre that they think sanitary products incur a GST. The rule was that only ‘essential’ items were GST free. Hello? What’s the alternative? Rags and Copper Pots again?

bella starkey says:

12:39pm | 05/12/11

Prescriptions are only valid for a year, each script should have enough repeats on it for 12 months. If you have a regular GP they should be willing to write you a script without a consultation if you have been on the same pill for a long time. I ask for a script for the pill everytime I go to the doctor because I’m always losing them. If I haven’t had cause to go in ages and I run out a quick phone call and I can pick it up the next day.

Kika says:

12:53pm | 05/12/11

Hey that’s a great idea. The appointments for the pill should be bulk billed. Still pay for the medicine, but reduce the cost in having to go to the doctor to get it. Medicare would still pay the same regardless.

Erick says:

01:29pm | 05/12/11

Women don’t HAVE to “clean up men’s mess”. They can always abstain from icky PIV sex if they want to.

You’re just expressing your hatred of men, as usual.

progressivesunite says:

01:48pm | 05/12/11

@ Erick - yes, that’s the point - I totally agree with you that women should, if they want to, be able to abstain from sexual practices that put all the burden on them and none on men, including men’s “need” (read: want) to ejaculate in them….

Careful opening that pandora’s box though Erick, your brethren might not thank you for it…

fairsfair says:

01:55pm | 05/12/11

WTF!?!?!?!?

I think all men are currently breathing a collective sigh of relief that you are a lesbian.

Tim says:

02:04pm | 05/12/11

Progressivesunite,
Sigh,
the lesbian man hating club is that way————————->>>>

On the flip side of your argument, why should men have to pay child support for women getting pregnant if they don’t want to keep the baby?
Why should men have to clean up women’s mess?

Kassandra says:

02:43pm | 05/12/11

@ progressivesunite:

If I were you I would be less anxious to denigrate things other women like but you happen to have an obvious aversion to. You don’t have anything to do with men so your opinions about womens’ contraception are irrelevant as well as poorly informed. See the post above yours. Men are responsible for the contraception in more relationships with fertile women than women are through taking the pill (40% vs 34%). You should remember that most women feel differently about these things to the way you do.

Kika says:

02:47pm | 05/12/11

TIM - if the man doesn’t want a baby, he shouldn’t donate his contribution into the woman. He should take his own measures to ensure that doesn’t happen. ALWAYS.

Tim says:

03:04pm | 05/12/11

But Kika,
I come from the Progressivesunite school of logic.
I never have to take responsibility for the consequences of my choices.
Its always someone elses fault.

St. Michael says:

05:35pm | 05/12/11

@ Tim: your arrow is pointing in the wrong direction.  Pretty sure it should be going left, not right.

marley says:

06:45pm | 05/12/11

@progressivesunite:  I really don’t know how to break this to you, but quite a few women enjoy PIV sex.  So, abstaining isn’t an option.  And that means women taking responsibility for the possible consequences, whether by means of the pill, an IUD (both reliable), a diaphragm (not so much), withdrawal (not at all). 

If women don’t want to have children, the onus is on them; if men don’t, likewise.  Accidents happen, intentional “errors” happen (on both sides of the equation), so unless the woman is past the age of childbearing, she damn well better take accountability for herself, and her guy should do the same.  And that’s not even counting STDs.

And if I remember my biology correctly, getting pregnant requires both a female and a male component - an egg and a sperm.  So it’s not just a man’s “mess” if a woman gets pregnant unexpectedly - it’s both their messes.

Having read some of your comments, you seem to feel that sex is a one-way street – with the woman as traffic cop turning on the red light whenever she wants.  The thing is, when you’re in a committed relationship, you care about what you want, but you also care about what your partner wants. If that means a bit of give and take, whether in sex or in life, a bit of compromise so that each of you gets something, well, that’s a sign that you have a mature relationship.  If it’s all about your needs and desires and not at all about your partner’s, well,  sorry, but that’s for playgrounds, not adult relationships.

Al says:

02:28pm | 05/12/11

Is the chemist actualy run as a religous organisation or is it just run along the lines of a certain set of beliefs?
In either case it is against the law to deny health care to women, even on religous grounds. They can certainly state that a buisness will be run along religous grounds, but they can’t refuse to provide medical services to the public on the basis of religous grounds. (In other words, they can require employees in the buisness to maintain certain strictures during working time based on religous requirements, but they can’t refuse a person access to a service they provide based solely on their gender).

Lola says:

02:57pm | 05/12/11

Once upon a time, I found myself unexpectedly pregnant. I went to my local family GP who I’d seen for many years for advice and information on EVERYTHING including information about terminations - pros, cons, what happens. HE FLAT out refused to discuss it with me on the basis of his religious beliefs and told me that it just takes men a while to get used to being fathers and to go away and think I had PLENTY of time to decide.

I think he used that as a deliberate tactic to make us wait beyond the 12 week point so I couldn’t seek a termination. So he withheld vital information we needed from him as a medical practitioner on the basis of religous reasons.

I never went back and felt really cheated by him.

The Bunyip says:

03:46pm | 05/12/11

@Lola, depending on which state or territory you live in, abortion may be illegal unless performed for medical reasons.  Denying you information about an illegal activity is very different to denying legal care on the basis of gender or religion.

Kika says:

02:43pm | 05/12/11

You must be on of the lucky ones who can cope with the cheap nasty ones. I can’t. Mine isn’t on the PBS and I pay at least $30.00 a month for mine.

bella starkey says:

03:19pm | 05/12/11

I’ve been taking the “cheap nasty ones” for years and the only side effect I’ve have is slightly bigger tits.

Erick says:

02:57pm | 05/12/11

@Heather - You can thank feminism for starting a war between women and men.

Mark says:

04:02pm | 05/12/11

@Erick- And you can thank idiotic, provocative comments like that for proliferating and perpetuating that war. Stupid, stupid man. You may be intelligent academically- but you really lack in the interpersonal and logical departments. You just present facts, independent of each other, and expect everyone to bow down to you like some internet messiah. Well, Erick, present me with a solution to the issue of unwanted pregnancies and you may well be the second coming of christ. Until then, you remain a pleb of the technological age. Able to memorize and regurgitate un-edited facts but never present a logical argument.. Congratulations