We've updated this post to acknowledge a Facebook user's observation [1].
Ever since the Affordable Care Act mandated the coverage of birth control in 2010, there's been a fair amount of backlash to the provision. But as one Twitter user named Tammi pointed out in a glorious protest sign [2], why is the government subsidy for Viagra not contested?
Facebook vs. twitter #iwdla2017 [3] pic.twitter.com/rjw7J3xzly [4]
— tammi (@taammiiM) March 6, 2017 [5]
Tammi's sign, which she shared on March 5 just days before A Day Without a Woman [6], has gone viral for saying, "Viagra is gov't funded ($41.6 mil/yr). If pregnancy is God's will, so is limp d*ck."
Her sign refers to how much money the Department of Defense spent paying for active or retired military personnel's erectile disfunction drugs in 2014. The Department's Health Agency did, in fact, subsidize $41.6 million for Viagra in 2014 and $42.6 million on other erectile dysfunction drugs [7].
It's worth noting that the Department of Defense also covers birth control and other contraceptives [9], according to the military insurance website. And erectile dysfunction drugs also treat heart conditions; some women even take their equivalents for such conditions [10].
Similarly — as a Facebook user rightfully pointed out [11] — those against government-subsidized birth control should know that birth control is prescribed to treat other conditions like endometriosis and severe menstruation pain in women.
Tammi's viral sign reveals a systemic issue and striking discrepancy: why is it that birth control coverage is vilified while coverage for drugs whose primary purpose is erectile dysfunction are not?