Is REPRIMAND a response to abortion and contraception legislation?

Many readers have asked whether REPRIMAND legislation is in response to the recent wave of what the liberal media has dubbed the "Republican War on Women?"  In a way, yes...

The 2010 census showed that 51% of the American population is female, that is, our great nation has a majority of women.  The Center for American Women and Politics reports that 83% of our Federal lawmakers (i.e. the House and Senate) are men, and according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 76% of state lawmakers nationwide are men.  The National Journal reports that in 2011, 68% of the "congressional staffers who hold the key posts in the legislative leadership offices and the committees" are men (note that in Democratic positions, 62% are men, while Republicans have a 73% majority).  By some estimates, only 1/3 of the Washington lobbyists are women.  In other words, men are overwhelmingly representing an increasingly female population. 

We should all applaud the attention that men are bringing to women's issues, but laws requiring transvaginal ultrasounds before abortion, for example, offer very limited health benefits in terms of preventative screening by capitalizing on an already-present audience.  Each year, 2% of women have abortions, and while ultrasounds of their vagina, uterus and ovaries can provide early detection of a variety of life-threatening diseases,  roughly 16 out of 100,000 women die yearly from cancers of the female genital system.  Prostate cancer accounts for 10% of the cancer deaths among men.  Which seems more urgent of an issue to you, the voter?

The ongoing federal and state debates on contraception and reproduction suggest that our largely male legislative body is overly concerned with issues of women's health and reproduction.  This is why it is so important that our lawmakers understand the critical difference they can make by passing similar legislation for men.  The REPRIMAND law is much bolder than what a few lawmakers have already suggested.  For example, Ohio State Senator Nina Turner has proposed SB 307 to regulate men's access to erectile-dysfunction medication (e.g. Viagra), however far more men suffer from low testosterone than erectile dysfunction, so even Sen. Turner's law is limited in scope.  Men need, and deserve, better coverage than merely when they need a little extra help in the sack. 


In terms of invasive procedures being forced on citizens during medical treatment, prostate exams are no more onerous than a transvaginal sonogram, and can save up to a million men!  The REPRIMAND law will offer equal legislative compassion to the men of our great country.  Isn't it time that men give themselves a fair shake?