Life, Liberty, Birth Control and the Pursuit of Happiness

If you happened to be tuning into the right channel at the right time you might have seen a panel of women representing a variety of woman's rights groups weighing in on the recent events surrounding birth control. One stated defiantly 'We are MAD' when asked how she and those she represents feels about the stir over a government mandate to cover birth control as a part of health insurance. She said they were 'tired of being robbed of their rights'. In essence these women were saying that birth control was a right and if insurance companies do not offer this under their group plans then they are somehow denying women some inalienable right.

Sandra Fluke is a woman who believes subsidized birth control is a woman's right and the denial of it is an attack on women. Miss Fluke is not alone. She testified that without state mandated birth control, coverage would be so costly it would force a woman to choose between her education and birth control. This is absurd and given the availability of low cost birth control, it's just untrue.

If a woman is uninsured or her insurance doesn't cover the birth control pill then she is on the hook for anywhere between 150 USD to 1000 USD a year depending on whether the medical visit is covered by insurance, where she buys it and whether she buys generic or name brand.  If this price tag is still too much then there are several organizations that offer free birth control pills for lower income women and families. Assertions that the price of birth control would be roughly 3000 USD over a 3 year period are extremely high and would only be true with the most expensive options and of course there are much cheaper options. Condoms are quite cheap and are often given away for free at many clinics and they also help prevent the spread of disease.

Then there is her anonymous friend who she says was denied hormonal contraception as a preventative treatment for ovarian cysts. Few would doubt that an insurance company has whole teams of people whose only job is to find any reason not to pay out a dime but the story is lacking any details. It is simply a story of a person she says she knows who was denied coverage for a preventative medical treatment because the insurance company decided she only wanted it for birth control. Who was this woman? who was her doctor? Did her doctor prescribe this as a medical treatment? Why would her pills cost 100 USD a month? Did she look into Planned Parenthood who offers free or highly subsidized birth control pills to those who cannot afford it? This could certainly be a true story but as it comes to us it is simply an unverified and, possibly unverifiable, rhetorical device and to give credence to such a vague statement is unwise.

Then of course there is the inevitable argument that providing birth control is cheaper in the long run as it prevents unwanted and expensive pregnancies. The argument assumes that we all carry the responsibility to prevent others from becoming pregnant. It assumes that if a woman cannot, for some reason, get birth control pills, she will simply refuse to use a cheaper alternative, she will have unprotected sex, have an unwanted pregnancy and it will be our fault. A classic case of displaced blame because a woman cannot be expected to take responsibility for her own actions.

Paying for birth control is a significant added expense to a system you will be relying on to approve an expensive (but possibly lifesaving) procedure in the future.Taking on that added expense cannot be justified simply by saying that if we don't we will then be taking on the expense of unwanted pregnancy in the future. The responsibility for reproduction always will lie with the individual and the threat that women will, for some reason, simpley have more babies if they cant get the pill offered on their health plan is simply an insult to women.

Religion has been the most vocal in their objections but they are far from alone on this issue. There are also those who believe that government should not dictate to insurance companies what they must cover. Then there are those who simply disagree with the notion that birth control pills are a inalienable right.

Those in the latter are not objecting for religious reasons, they are not opposed to birth control and many would even say it should be encouraged. Nor do they object to the government reserving the power to mandate to insurance companies a certain standard. To leave the terms of coverage completely to the insurance company would be as unwise as leaving it solely in the hands of the people or the companies who offer the coverage as condition of employment. Just like any industry or service offered there must be a minimum standard set for insurance companies as what is to be considered important medical coverage. For good or bad, our elected officials are our main advocates in the battle over health care so we want them to have the ability to mandate on our behalf.

Maybe you just hate women? Maybe you just don't understand how reproduction affects women so much more than men? Maybe you can't understand how important it is to women everywhere. You dont see that to even question whether its inclussion in group health plans should be mandated is an attack on women?

Why would a person who has no religious objection, no moral objection, or no objection to government mandates still be against their health care paying for birth control pills?

Health care insurance is a safety net to be used when we are sick, injured, or to aid us in staying healthy and alive. Most health insurance is provided to a group whose members pay their hard earned money each month on the assurance that when thay need it, they will have access to health care at a lower rate. It is an assurance that if that cold turns into pneumonia, if you or your family member breaks a bone, if you develop a chronic condition, you will not be forced to sell the house. Young or old we all end up needing health care so when people see something that might affect that assurance it ruffles feathers.

Taking birth control is elective. If you do not have sex, and you do not have a medical condition that requires you to take the pill, you don't need the pill. If you choose to have sex, then there is a variety of options that do not require medication that one can choose or you can choose to take medication, but as there is no real medical need to take the pill, why should it be covered under a standard medical plan? This is the case for many things that are not covered by insurance... there is no medical necessity. If you have acne and it can be treated successfully with an ointment, but you are an adult, your insurance might not cover it so you will need to pony up 120 USD for it or live with acne. Right or wrong it was decided that adults who have acne have no medical reason for taking an acne treatment.

This is not a matter of denying women a right. Birth control is not a woman's issue, it is a human issue as it affects both sexes and it potentially affects everyone that pays into a health plan. To say it is a woman's issue is looking at it in a sexist and very myopic way. Women are equals to men and they have a right to live and compete with men on a an equal playing field. If anyone, be they man or woman, wants their birth control covered by a plan that includes thousands of other people, those other people have a right to an opinion on the subject. They have the right to question why or even challenge the idea that government mandated birth control (and zit cream) might not be a basic human right.