This is absolutely brilliant; some of the most out-of-the-box thinking I've heard of in a VERY long time. Kudos, Senator Turner!

Like they say: what's good for the goose is good for the gander!
If some of our "less government" Republicans (said with overflowing-sarcasm) insist on going after women's birth control, then it's only fair that mens birth control is gone after in the exact same way.

Um Jack, Viagra is not birth control.

Maybe a man suffering from ED is having a personal message sent from God to stop trying to procreate, you know since you only have sex to have offspring. LOL.

I wish i could turn in completely useless work at my job and still collect a paycheck. Tomorrow ill try to do something out of pure spite, just like this bill she proposed and see where that gets me.

I don't think we are talking about 20 something's here. I think most men that go to the Doctors for Viagra are not taking it to procreate there probable past that point and there partners are also past that place in there life too. Your talking about older people because of a medical condition can not be interment sexually with there partner and need help with that part of there life. Viagra has nothing to do with birth control. A Ohio Senator should have better things to do in this economy and high unemployment in Ohio Then wondering what everyone is doing in there bedrooms, Apperently there doing what your not, Nina. Don't be such a kill-joy.

Here's the logic behind this suggestion by an Ohio senator who is obviously stealing her paycheck. First, statistically more women than men get pregnant therefore it is a woman's opinion that is the sole authority in matters of birth control. (Side note: I said birth control not contraception. They are two different things. Contraception prevents conception, birth control prevents birth after conception) But men are trying to take that authority away from women so we go to point two. Statistically more men than women have erectile dysfunction and they are currently the authority on that subject so we must turn the tables. Unfortunately the logic is flawed because the first argument does not stop a woman from having sex, even if abortion was banned the act of sex can still be accomplished. Now if she was to say no man could have a sterilization procedure then she might have a case but not really since no woman is required to prove the father of her child approves an abortion procedure . Let us follow her logic to its conclusion. Women are involved in car accidents at a rate of 5.7 per million miles driven while men are involved in accidents at a rate of 5.1 accidents per million miles driven. So logically we can conclude that a woman must get her husband's or her father's or brother's or her boyfriend's permission to drive. And each time before she drives she must take the driver's test and be shown a movie about the dangers of driving irresponsibly. Agreeable?

Are we actually paying this woman for this? Our inner city schools are a disaster. Our suburban schools have to keep passing levy's just to have busing. Countless thousands of people are still out of work and losing their homes. Many of our youth are disenfranchised and are killing others or themselves....

And she's working hard on this type of legislation??? I think there is a point to be made regarding who is in "control" of a person's body. But this is NOT the way to do it. And what's truly sad in the situation is that once again we've reduced sex to nothing more than a self-seeking biological function. I wonder how much things would change if both people involved in sex regarded each other as more important than themselves. I wonder how things would change about sex if we regarded it as the highest form of physical intimacy that is a bi-product of emotional and spiritual intimacy?

What if we looked at sex like an invaluable treasure instead of something we pick up in the checkout aisle at Walmart. I think our need to legislate who, what, where and when regarding sex would greatly diminish...

Or maybe I'm just naive.

Spitefull legislation is corrossive and detrimental to the political process. Shameless grandstanding by another politician who heaps more junk legislation onto the pile of intrusive government requirements.

Bravo Senator Turner!

I know of women who take birth control to keep their hormones regular because they suffer from severe migraines, which are TRUE medical issues!

Loved the post alicia

This definitely is a good idea but the way that she states "a taste of their own medicine" makes the bill more of a revengeful idea than anything and that is not what our government and our bills should be being used for. However, what Alicia stated lines up pretty closely with what these male officials are trying to reinforce upon women...

This whole subject is just Democratic Talking Points coupled with efforts by the Main Stream Media to reelect President Obama. It is such a non-issue. No one is trying to prevent women, collage age or otherwise, from getting the birth control they want.

The Viagra vs birth control argument is a straw-man approach to confuse the facts.

From FactCheck.org:

"...independent studies of coverage are sparse, but the ones that exist don’t show that the drug [Viagra] is covered more than birth control."

"A 2004 report by the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute found that in 2002, 86 percent of the plans that insurance companies typically wrote for employers covered the full range of approved reversible contraceptive methods (birth control pills, hormone injections, implants, IUDs and diaphragms), and only 2 percent covered no methods at all.

The worry that Viagra, but not birth control, is being included in health care plans is out-of-date, according to Adam Sonfield, who coauthored the report. "

Plus, a study, released in May 2011 by Emily Gray Collins and Brad Hershbein of the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center. "...nearly all insurance policies cover birth control pills, so insured women have more alternative places to get contraception."

sources:
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/07/mccains-viagra-moment/
http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/pubs/pdf/rr11-737.pdf

I find it interesting that the government has been trying to fight teen pregnancy for years and then proposes to do something that would go in the complete opposite direction. Not to mention do you really want people getting pregnant who are not financially or emotionally ready to have a baby or who who just plain don't want a baby getting pregnant? If women have to pay the full cost of birth control and then can't afford it there's a possibility a number of things might happen. 1) Teen pregnancy goes up. 2) Number of unwed mothers having children goes up. 3) Poverty increases (due to the burden of having more or unwanted children). 4) Number of people on welfare increases (see number 3). 5) Crime increases, which would normally follow 3 and 4, 6) Domestic violence / abuse increases (could be linked to number 3 as well), 7) College enrollment decreases due to people having babies much earlier. And all this is in addition to the fact that MANY women are on birth control for reasons other than pregnancy prevention. A lot of the BC pills these days help to control a number of other reproductive related things going on in a woman's body. Think of the women who have extremely heavy or irregular periods. The women who have cramping so bad they can't go to work. The women who's emotions just go out of control. The governnment needs to stay out of reproductive rights.

If we are going to argue the MEDICAL need for birth control coverage, then I'm all for it. But that's not what our government is asking for. Most insurers already cover it for medical need. Those that don't, need to do so.

But this senators point is not going to be well received or productive. It's apples to oranges comparing birth control / abortions to Viagra. If she wanted to mimic current legislation she should write a bill that requires coverage of condoms and vasectomies. We all know that isn't happening - and to her point, women seem to be the focus of government control.

Good! If this sort of anti-woman rubbish is law, men should, in turn, be required highly-invasive prostate exams as well ... thoroughly ... for treatment of ED. Demand they go on a vegan diet, too, since most ED is a sign of an eventual heart attack (a blocked artery is a blocked artery).

And no matter what you think of a zygote or foetus, it's in a woman's uterus -- meaning it is inside & part of a free citizen's body -- and it is not my business, your business or the government's business. You cannot exact legislation on organs. You cannot exact guilt trips within medicine (that is NOT ethical, sensible or in any way responsible medicine). You certainly cannot divide a woman into parts and make her a non-person. This is 2012, right?

Senator Turner's proposed bill is getting the PRECISE results she wanted ... getting folks talking about "the heartbeat bill" and reprodutcive rights in general.

Ms Turner is quoted in a March 14 Dayton Daily News article: "I certainly want to stand up for men's health and take this seriously and legislate it the same way most men say they want to legislate a woman's womb." I'm not sure whether or not she uttered this with her tongue planted firmly in her cheek, but you have to admit ... uber-clever approach.

I just find it amazing that Senator Turner would try to punish men with prostate cancer. Because that's exactly what her proposed bill does. The majority of men treated for prostate cancer often suffer serious side effects from all the currently available treatments--ED is usually one of those unintended consequences. So her bill punishes those prostate cancer patients seeking treatment to remedy the side effects of their surgery, radiation etc. Sounds like a well thought out plan on Senator Turner's part. . . . Would she do the same for breast cancer patients?? make them jump through hoops to get coverage for treatments to remedy side effects of their treatment??