Post: #1

http://wate.com/2016/02/23/tennessee-via...l-delayed/

A bill, sponsored by two women is making its way through the state legislature that will introduce a 48 hour waiting period to get ED drugs and get this "an notarized affidavit from a sexual partner that the patient actually has the problem" This only applies if the dude has never been married.

Other weird gems

"No physician shall prescribe erectile dysfunction medications
for men who are able to become partially erect."

"3 sessions of mandatory counselling"

"no state group health insurance will cover ED drugs unless mandated by law"

Here is the full text of the bill http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/HB1927.pdf

Some legislators have speculated that this is a 'revenge bill' for TN abortion restrictions as some of the waiting periods, funding restrictions and counselling mirror abortion provisions. More likely this is just angry bitches trying to drag men into menopause with them.

How are abortion and erectile dysfunction on the same playing field? This is insanity. I am hoping that the bill gets crushed by the health subcommittee as it only has one female member.

Post: #2

This is a joke bill meant to put the spotlight on the abortion restrictions. It won't pass for real.

Post: #3

This will not pass, drug companies and medical professionals have too much money to lose.

Post: #4

Funny thing is there are actually very similar restrictions for vasectomies, as well as a much greater degree of social shaming.

California has a mandatory "cooling-off" period:
http://www.albertnet.us/2009/03/everythi...about.html

Some doctors require permission from the married man's wife before performing the procedure. Can you imaging the hell feminists would raise if abortion doctors did this?

Post: #5

Tax paid trolling by the left to make a point about women's rights on BC.

Post: #6

The obvious response is to make a woman get a man's written permission to buy a dildo/vibrator.

Post: #7

Dick pills have a nice habit of showing the double standards in the feminist USA.

For example, many insurances won't even partially cover ED medications but birth control is free without any co-pays. But you can't discriminate base on gender with Obamacare regarding premiums. Everyone pays the same.

HOWEVER, auto insurance companies CAN and DO charge more based on gender.

If there was a bill by two men to restrict prescription grade lube for women, there would be a massive outrage.

Par for the course really.

Post: #8

Quote:"No physician shall prescribe erectile dysfunction medications
for men who are able to become partially erect."

Interesting.

Maybe these two bill sponsors should volunteer to go around to doctor's offices and wrap their lips around patient's cocks to estimate whether or not the men can truly become partially erect or not.

This is the only way to be sure and for the benefit of public service of course.

Post: #9

(02-24-2016 01:48 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

Quote:"No physician shall prescribe erectile dysfunction medications
for men who are able to become partially erect."

Interesting.

Maybe these two bill sponsors should volunteer to go around to doctor's offices and wrap their lips around patient's cocks to estimate whether or not the men can truly become partially erect or not.

This is the only way to be sure and for the benefit of public service of course.

Post: #10

What happened to "Keep government out of my womb?"

Post: #11

(02-24-2016 12:24 AM)eatthishomie Wrote:  This is a joke bill meant to put the spotlight on the abortion restrictions. It won't pass for real.

Made it to second reading in the senate. Either way, I'd be all over this if either of these women were my state reps or senator. Do these people really think they were elected to troll the legislature? Surely there is something better they can do to serve their constituents.

Post: #12

(02-24-2016 01:32 AM)The Black Knight Wrote:  Dick pills have a nice habit of showing the double standards in the feminist USA.

For example, many insurances won't even partially cover ED medications but birth control is free without any co-pays. But you can't discriminate base on gender with Obamacare regarding premiums. Everyone pays the same.

HOWEVER, auto insurance companies CAN and DO charge more based on gender.

If there was a bill by two men to restrict prescription grade lube for women, there would be a massive outrage.

Par for the course really.

There is a logical monetary reason for an insurance company to do this. (i.e. free birth control for women and not pay for ED treatment for men.)

1: Free birth control. While it looks like that the insurance company is giving away something for free, they are also making it less likely that there will be another kid using health services in the future that would be a cost to the insurance company. Birth control pills are far less costly and only would be needed for a 20 year span about. The way some premiums are structured, the levels are single, married couple, married couple with kids with number of kids having no effect on the premium

2: Charge for ED treatments. If you charge for something instead of giving it away for free, it makes it less likely that those treatments will take place, also reducing the chance of more kinds that would be a cost for health care to the insurance companies.

Post: #13

I took a viagra once. That shit is powerful. Flushed face, dick like iron and nearly no refractory period. Headache is the worst part.
I imagine Viagra hell is popping the pill and the girl flaking! Oh no!

Post: #14

The irony is that Viagra and similar drugs exist so that older women can still get banged by their husbands. Sure, real erectile dysfunction exists (probably mostly due to unhealthy lifestyles), but the good majority of men who can't get it up have this problem because their wife has become old/fat/ugly/manly/cut her hair short. I would bet a lot of money that most men who suffer from "ED" can get it up just fine when they're watching porn and would get rock hard immediately if they were about to bang an attractive, feminine 21 year old girl.

Post: #15

It's long been a feminist talking point that "health insurance covers Viagra but not birth control pills, because SEXISM." (Some previous posters say that this isn't the case; I don't know if it's true.)

This is one of those things that sounds profound on the surface but is actually really idiotic. Viagra and similar drugs correct a medical problem, whereas birth control pills are used in support of a lifestyle choice. (Perhaps there are rare cases when a woman needs to be on birth control mills for some medical reason, but that is a minor exception.)

This talking point simply reflects our society's post-'60s worldview: sex only exists for recreation, so the government should subsidize men's and women's unaccountable pursuit thereof equally. (Ironically, this might be a left-wing position that the manosphere can get behind.)