Medicaid Should Stop Paying for Viagra


The fight over whether or not to use public funds to pay for abortion services has been waged for years. Many times arch-conservative Christian groups have launched campaigns to de-fund Planned Parenthood in different states.

But in Virginia, the attacks have been taken to a new – and more sickening – level. Agreeing with the Virginia Christian Alliance during their press conference, Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas decided to take their dogma one step further, saying

“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children.”

The absurdity of that statement needs no comment, though many others have provided excellent feedback.

Despite the uproar, three other male Virginia public officials, Governor Bob McDonnell, Lieutenant Governor Bolling, and Attorney General Cuccinelli, have released statements saying they agree with the idea of stripping  funds for Planned Parenthood. 

They don’t think that taxpayers should have to pay for abortions.

Well how about this: I don’t think my tax dollars should pay for erections.

That’s right – Medicare, a publicly-funded program, covers Viagra. In case you forgot, Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction. A.k.a., Viagra is used so men can have sex…with women. (You know our homophobic society wouldn’t condone a drug meant to be used by gay couples).

How is that at all the same as funding abortion services, you might ask?

Allow me to point out possibly the largest hypocrisy in politics: The idea that it’s OK to use public funds so men can get it up and have sex, but it’s not fair to provide birth control or reproductive services to the women they have sex with.

So Planned Parenthood “promotes promiscuity” and Viagra promotes abstinence? Right.

Well, ladies, I hope you either want a lot of children or know of a magical fairy who turns off your reproductive system until you’re ready for motherhood.

Myself, I have yet to meet that magical fairy. So until I do, I think public funds should stop paying for Viagra. I don’t want my tax dollars contributing to men’s erections, which could lead to unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

What say ye, gentleman of Virginia?

PS: Could you point me to an affordable clinic where I can get annual exams and cancer screenings? Thanks.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • crowepps

    Aside from Viagra, which is entirely a ‘life-style’ drug, I’m not any too thrilled by the recent bills promoting using tax funds for assisted reproduction technologies.

    If couples can’t afford to pay for the treatment, how are they going to support the resultant child? Why should the taxpayer on the hook for 10 grand so a Medicaid recipient can have a biological child?

    http://www.phc4.org/reports/mandates/SB1183/costestimates.htm

  • pheasantweber

    Boosh! You know what else irritates me. There is insurance that will cover Viagra and not birth control!! Birth control should be free for anyone and everyone for goodness sake. EC should be in vending machines.

    Absolutely ridiculous. Good entry!:D

    Pheasant Weber

    be tHe awKwaRd

  • saltyc

    Wait, you mean the same in vitro technologies which creates more embryos that can be used which are then "killed"? My tax dollars going to "kill" embryos in the name of making babies OK but tax dollars used to prevent a baby not OK? So….. you mean this ISNT about saving embryos after all?????? d’Oh! OH! it’s about women are baby making machines and we better get used to it.

  • ldavid56

    Covering Viagra and not birth control just emphasizes that women’s reproductive health is not as important as men’s.

  • crowepps

    I dispute the idea that old men being able to have sex is a ‘reproductive health’ issue.  Nobody ever died because he couldn’t get or sustain an erection.  The physical ability to have sex is something which naturally wanes as a person’s body ages or is damaaed by illness.  Artificially propping up that ability in a geriatric population is about life-style, not health.  If that’s what they feel they need, I have no problem with their using their own money to pay for it, but it’s stretching it to call it an ‘illness’ and demand the taxpayers foot the bill.

  • cat

    Having the ability to have a fullfilling sex life is an important health related issue.  Medicare, medicaid and insurance should cover viagra (and generics), as well as birth control (you only need that in most cases for sexual purposes which are part of your ‘lifestyle’) and conditions such which cause pain during sex for women (because yes, sexuality is an important aspect of having a happy life).  It is absolutely hypocritical that men’s sexual health is covered but women’s is not, but it is absurd to think that the answer is to take away existing coverage. Viagra and birth control and abortion and treatment for FSD, they all should be covered.

  • epicurienne

    If old guys can’t get it up, maybe it’s God’s will.  I think they should pray about it.

  • saltyc

    Sexuality is an important aspect of a healthy life for many people. I wouldn’t say all people. Lots of people are perfectly happy and never copulate. I’ve even seen the term LGBTA the A standing for asexual, it’s a minority but exists.

  • grayduck

    I completely agree with the sentiments in the article. Irresponsible sexual activity is no more “an important aspect of having a happy life” than any other irresponsible activity like smoking, drunk driving, raping strangers, or using illegal drugs.