Mark Greene wants to bust some birth control myths, once and for all.
Recently Ms. Sandra Fluke advocated for women’s birth control before a house committee igniting a national furor over the issue. In the days that have followed three myths have been propagated across the internet regarding the implications of Ms. Flukes testimony.
Myth #1) Ms. Fluke wants somebody else to pay for her contraception
No. Ms. Fluke is not asking for other people to pay for her birth control, any more than others might want somebody else to pay for their allergy pills.
What any of us want is for the services we value to be part of our health coverage. As we are paying into a risk pool, we would like for our preferred preventative care to be covered. By speaking out, Ms. Fluke wants to encourage all of us to arrive at a public consensus that says birth control is considered of value to enough people (NOT 100%) but enough people that it is included in the coverage she has.
Myth #2) Adding birth control to an insurance plan drives up costs for everyone
No. It will not. There is ample evidence to suggest that including cost free birth control in insurance plans does not raise the overall cost of health care because it reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. See an article here: http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
Myth #3) Obama’s Recent HHS mandate will force religious organizations who oppose birth control on religious grounds to provide it
No. Obama’s HHS mandate, which was revised in February, provides an exclusion for all faith-based organizations — not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities — from covering employees’ contraception costs.
For counter points on the birth control debate, read Brandon Ferdig’s “On Fear And Loathing In Politics“
Photo courtesy of Mike Licht
About Mark Greene
About #1.
Wrong.
By defining every application of birth control as “health” she is doing exactly that. Condoms are definitely more “sexual health” than the pill and cheaper too. Just sayin’
So demand condoms. Why does her need for the pill compete with your need for condoms? Seems like you both deserve birth control options to be covered.
What competition? Health Insurance is for Health. Birth control pills as typically used are not “health”.
Preventing pregnancy is “health.” It is preventing a very costly medical condition.
Not to mention dangerous in some cases. Pregnancy takes a huge toll on the body.
Sorry but birth control pills used as contraception shouldn’t be paid for by insurance any more than the salad I ate for lunch. An apple a day….
Other prescriptions are covered by insurance. Your salad is not a medical prescription. A more fitting analogy would be, “birth control pills used as contraception shouldn’t be paid for by insurance any more than the pills I take for my high blood pressure.”
Oh, wait. They are covered.
Oh wait.
Blood pressure medicine is altogether in a different category than both food an BCP’s and it’s also not a mandate!
All you see is “I don’t have to pay”.
You don’t know what health is/want it redefined for your benefit.
You conveniently keep forgetting this is about forcing everyone and every company to pay for women’s birth control .
My analogy is fine. Ever heard of a doctor prescribed diet? My salad could surely be counted as health and then coverage mandated by your logic. But it’s silly to do that just like it is for BCP’s.
I don’t have to pay? I pay for insurance. I don’t understand what your point is here. What am I getting out of insurance if the only thing I need is not covered? Why would I be paying for insurance?
“You conveniently keep forgetting this is about forcing everyone and every company to pay for women’s birth control.”
By that rationale, I am also being forced to pay for obesity screening, immunizations, tobacco use screening, and colorectal cancer for other people, none of which I am using. Those are also covered under the same mandate. So why are you so upset about birth control and not obesity screening or tobacco use screening?
“My analogy is fine. Ever heard of a doctor prescribed diet?”
hahahaha. Okay, so your doctor writes a prescription for a certain diet, and you go to the pharmacy and hand it to them and they say, “Alright, we will fill this medication… oh.” It is not a medical prescription.
Now you are being silly.
1. You pay to cover health related items should you have a health related issue.
2. None of those things you list is a mandate AND tobacco use screening has a different rate on some policies.
3. Pharmacy is not a boundary condition for what counts as health.
“Now you are being silly.”
Try again without being condescending, then I will discuss this with you like a peer.
1. “You pay to cover health related items should you have a health related issue.”
Birth control pills are a part of treating hormonal imbalances, not just sexual health. Therefore bc pills ARE a health related issue! Various conditions / imbalances are treated with the use of hormones (hey, just like your thyroid or adrenal glands!).
Its just a matter of time for our culture to demand that our insurance companies that we pay for cover bc pills, and not act like its “our own problem”.
Contraceptives most certainly ARE used to improve or maintain health. A very brief list would include dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, abnormal uterine bleeding, endometriosis, PMDD, cyclic regularity, polycystic ovary disease, pre/peri-menopausal symptoms, etc……. I am a provider at a family practice. Of the 11 patients I saw yesterday, two women were seeking oral contraceptives. Neither case was for prevention of pregnancy. Denying women contraceptives in these cases would be akin to denying men medication for benign prostatic hyperplasia, urinary incontinence, headache, PTSD…. Furthermore, insurance coverage of Viagra isn’t necessary, if of course, you don’t believe “we should be paying for people to have sex”. If you’re going to argue a scientific fact, do your homework first.
Condoms are already freely available in most areas and are much much cheaper.
“Condoms are definitely more “sexual health” than the pill and cheaper too.”
Condoms don’t treat actual medical conditions, whereas the hormones in birth control pills (and the hormones in one of the IUDs) do. Hormonal birth control is a medical treatment and thus is a “health” issue.
Birth control pills are soooo commonly used to treat medical conditions that they are most commonly called something other than birth control pills right?
In the cases where BCP’s and condoms (yes there are examples) are used for health, it’s easy to cover those cases rather than all the other times when they are used as contraception.
Half the women I know use birth control primarily for health reasons, contraception is side effect for them. As I’ve pointed out before, one of them is a lesbian, so yeah, contraception is not really important to her.
“It’s easy to cover those cases rather than all the other times when they are used as contraception.”
Really? If the requirement for birth control coverage was a “medical problem” (which, for me, my fertility is a problem, but whatever), then every woman, including myself, would walk into the gynecologist and complain of unbearable cramps and heavy periods, which is what hormonal birth control is frequently used to treat. I know a girl used to blackout during her periods. It wasn’t an actual diagnosable condition, but one that was easily treated with a hormonal IUD.
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html
“meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons.”
And even when it isn’t used for a medical condition, wouldn’t it be better to demand and fight for coverage for condoms than to take away birth control from women? Vasectomies and Viagra are covered. You can get free condoms at Planned Parenthood, but I understand that can be awkward to just walk in and grab a handful. There should be a better plan. Fight for quicker approval of male birth control and the coverage of that. That’s where your energy should be focused.
Lumping hormone therapy, vasectomies and viagra with birth control pills as contraception is illogical. Plus throw in mandate and it’s clear you should focus your energy on understanding why most Birth control pills should NOT be covered.
Why is it illogical? Birth control is a medical treatment as is hormone therapy, vasectomies, and Viagra.
Viagra is a treatment for a physical disability, not a contraceptive
Vasectomies aren’t covered as far as I can tell
Neither are condoms
But this isn’t about women getting something and men aren’t, its about a daily, optional personal cost being covered by the community.
Where the pill is necessary for medical reasons… fine. Thats what health cover is for, so that if anyone develops or is born with a health issue the cost is distributed.
Ovulation isn’t a health issue, having unprotected sex isn’t a medical condition. The pill is expensive and optional for most women. Cheaper alternatives exist for contraception and I don’t agree that the whole community should be expected to fund other people’s sexual activities.
Vasectomies are covered by many plans. Condoms don’t require a prescription, oral BC does. The medical reason the pill can be required for can be myriad, but can include preventative health. Preventing, on a very consistent basis, pregnancy. It’s been used by millions of women for many years and the benefits are manifold.
If the whole community shouldn’t fund people’s sexual activity then they should take cialis, viagra etc off the market because that’s completely for a sexual activity. Medical? Sure, but no one ever died from not having an erection, see how that logic works? I’m happy to help support viagra, why wouldn’t I be? It doesn’t affect my life. Why would funding oral bc cause so much trouble for people.
Either everyone gets their sexual choices covered or no one should.
Anything that takes money out of someone’s pocket and into another’s affects a life. That’s part of what this mandate is about. Please don’t play dense.
Is Viagra coverage an insurance requirement? Nope. There are health uses for ED drugs and there are recreational uses …same as the pill. See how that logic works?
And by the way, the oatmeal I just ate is more “preventative health” than the pill typically is.
Name a male sexual health mandate by Obama
BC pills are probably covered by far more plans than vasectomies. Is Ms. Fluke demanding 100% coverage for that procedure as well as BC pills? I very highly doubt it.
I would wager than nothing is going to change other than the addition of BC pills for the church, which makes this stomach turningly repulsive.
The good news is that the rich people at Georgetown Law ($60K per year) will be able to get free BC pills. What probably won’t change is what I have seen many times.
I have personally witnessed insurance companies turn down certain drugs and procedures for people who were HOSPITALIZED!! If Ms. Fluke actually cared about something other than her political agenda, that would have been the subject of her testimony.
This is a perfect example of extremists on both sides who are equally vile.
A bit off topic, but the day I see one singular human being able to campaign, lobby, promote, support, act perfectly for ever single cause there is, especially the ones that are at a 180, or things a person doesn’t have expertise in, I’ll praise some deity.
Wouldn’t it be amazing if she was promoting vasectomies too! Only that’s not the whole push of the issues the church raised!!!!! She (and others) are responding to a direct singular focus with a direct singular focus. That’s how politics works. Which is why I’m not personally a politician.
I approach intersectional goals with diplomacy, conflict mediation and collaboration, which would be great if the hubbub was about finding multiple methods of BC to offer and what works and what doesn’t. No fun in that, not nearly so much drama or calls for me to be on tv!
This case is about the PILL.
Do I want vasectomies covered? Yes! Do I want a global health insurance that isn’t influenced by religions? Yes! Do I want men’s reproductive issues improved? Of course! Do men need a pill/oral contraception/etc? YES! Would I be ok if the RCC could insulate themselves and never have to trouble themselves about oral contraception, the evil money that MIGHT pay for SOMEONE to take the pill? Sure! But only if they stay out of politics everywhere else.
We’ve been at this for only about 60 years or so. That’s new. That’s recent. Women had no support or control for millenia (and men too, though if the men were happy with wives having babies they probably were cool about it all) and now we do. This is new a cultural milisecond. I know that’s cold comfort to any men who feel men’s healthcare is underrepresented or women who are worried about losing options, but in my long view opinion this was to be expected in a country where religion plays a huge role, gender issues are fresh and hot and difficult, and the goal of all of us should be keep moving FORWARD, not backwards, getting more lobbying for research into men’s care alongside women’s and finding ways to keep church and state separated.
I would be happy as a lark if the RCC never had to feel bad about anyone even remotely connected them using BC. But I want them out of my personal business too. I think it’s irrational as hell, most religions, but I’m not going to stop them from believing what they believe. The problem is, as I see it, they’d like to stop women who don’t believe like they do (and men) accessing those things they don’t believe in. They have a much longer view than I do after all.
“Name a male sexual health mandate by Obama”
Yeah, that’s called political suicide for Obama or anyone else, male or female. Certain feminist groups would be absolutely enraged by the misogyny of such a suggestion and mobilize to get whoever was foolish enough to suggest something like that voted out of office.
I’m not sure why a positive suggestion for a male focuses set of services needs to be an opportunity to raise the specter of enraged feminists. Not that there aren’t enraged feminists. Seems like being enraged is all the rage these days, for men and women. But the bottom line is MOST WOMEN are pro birth control. So to shoot down the idea as “political suicide” seems to me, just another way to start an argument with women where mutual self interest might instead exist.
Right? I’m a feminist, I know lots of feminists, and none of them dislike the idea of male BC. All want to make sure pregnancy doesn’t happen and most were really thrilled with the idea of RISUG, when I asked. No one likes prostate cancer either. Several feminist friends of mine have had father’s with it.
It’s really all framing, and that’s the only place I can see Eric has a point. If Obama was like HEY ALL DUDE COVERAGE (and ladies) then those who enjoy rage would get enraged. The BC thing is enraging to women because we’ve had this only for a miniscule amount of time and it’s caused so much good in women’s lives.
But the framing needs to be, which I guess it won’t ever be, HUMAN REPRODUCTIVE SUPPORT!!!!
Which is fucking sad, because women don’t want the men in their lives to die, suffer, get cancer etc and men don’t want the women in their life to die,suffer, get cancer etc…
Mark, I don’t know why you mentioned birth control in response to my comment as I said nothing about that.
What if the President (or any other politician) noted that since there are hundreds of funded state, local, and federal programs specifically for women’s health and well being, but zero (or close to it) for men, and since men get sick and die younger, some of those programs must rightly be changed to serve me instead of women — so that there is at least some semblance of equality in terms of women’s vs. men’s funded health programs?
What reaction, other than rage and political mobilization to excoriate those misogynists (who demanded equality for men), would come from feminist groups? I’m just being realistic here.
@Julie
This is not about the PILL, this is about the PILL being contrived as HEALTH when it’s contraception, and me being forced to pay for it.
The churches and other don’t want to be TOLD that they MUST pay for a LIFESTYLE choice.
The reason Male Birth Control is so oft mentioned is because doing so reveals the true nature of the debate which is about mandates, who pays, and what health is not!
Nearly 100% of health insurance plans have covered the PILL for DECADES, not years, decades. Therefore this cannot be about the pill.
Nearly 100% of insured women have had their BC pills included in their insurance plans for decades, not years, decades. Therefore this cannot be about women’s health.
0% of jobs, statistically, are with the church; so this affects virtually NO women who don’t agree with the policy and can’t pay for BC pills themselves.
The only possibility left is a politically motivated attack on that particular religion, which is guilty of its own misdeeds (but that’s a separate matter).
I have not Googled into Ms. Fluke’s background but, were I a betting man, I would bet that she has an axe to grind against the church based on political ideological differences and she conspired to create this hysteria, hate, and angst which, at the end of the day, helps virtually no one who truly needs help.
Were she earnest she would be supporting a cause that helps people in need of help.
I mentioned birth control because that is part of the set of male services that is lamented as missing. Missing services should be advocated for. The part of your statement that I take issue with is that balancing services for men would be opposed by “feminists” as misogynistic. That would only happen in the event that women’s services were absent. Furthermore, you are saying that a “feminist” reaction would cause political suicide for advocates for change.
I say moderates of all stripes. Even men who don’t agree with you on many of your more dogmatic positions, would support an egalitarian approach to services as part of a bigger picture adjustment across all gender issues.
The fact is, you’re empowering the extreme element of the women’s movement with these kinds of “oh, it will never happen” statements. This may serve to vent anger in the moment, but it will not bring change.
Mark, I didn’t say or imply anything at all about demanding male birth control services – maybe someone else did.
“The part of your statement that I take issue with is that balancing services for men would be opposed by “feminists” as misogynistic. That would only happen in the event that women’s services were absent.”
#1, women’s services are not absent, but men’s are. About 100% of gender-specific services and programs are for women, 0% for men. In recorded history, feminists have not once complained in writing about that inequality.
#2, if there was a mandate that 50% of those services were to be converted to serve men, there is no possibility that feminists would not THEN complain about a lack of services, citing the cut back as misogyny.
#3, if 50% of the current services for women are insufficient, why has 0% always been sufficient for men?
“Furthermore, you are saying that a “feminist” reaction would cause political suicide for advocates for change.”
Correct. You don’t even have to be rude about it like Rush Limbaugh. Merely demanding that 50% of the current programs be repurposed to serve men (so that men and women would be served equally) would be political suicide as the feminist movement would PAINT the change as an attack on women, rather than equality for men.
The feminist movement is not large but politically potent, active, and shrewd in propagandizing these issues. There is nothing I can do to change that one way or the other.
I AGREE WITH YOU. Adequate services for men. Yes. Many feminists agree with you. Why are you arguing with those of us who agree with you? Because arguing is the new American past time?
I AGREE WITH YOU.”
“Great.”
“Many feminists agree with you.”
“Many?”
If that were the case, why has there be no mention of it over the course of 30-40 years that this 100% to 0% inequality has existed? It is extraordinarily hard to believe that “many feminists” agree with decades of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding arguing, you inserted yourself into the thread in reply to me (which is fine) and began arguing your case against me with statements such as:
“The part of your statement that I take issue with. . .”
“many of your more dogmatic positions . . .”
“you’re empowering the extreme element of the women’s movement. . .”
1st sentence of your own link.
The most common reason U.S. women use oral contraceptive pills is to prevent pregnancy, but 14% of pill users rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes.
I rest my case.
And seriously no one is fighting over medically prescribed hormone therapy for real health reason.
IDBY, if you limit access to birth control in any way. Put up any barriers, more pregnancies will occur in less than ideal circumstances. This puts a huge burden on public funds to manage the challenges facing unwanted children and it also ups the likelihood of abortion. Universal access to birth control is about creating optimal outcomes in a population through good public policy.
Why the Fear Mongering? A condom is less than a dollar and is super accessible. You want what you want and are rationalizing with other peoples money.
Wow…a guy who would prefer to use condoms with his wife or girlfriend.
Sorry if that came off as condescending, but I was always under the impression that guys really preferred to to have sex without condoms. Most women do too, but I’ve heard it makes more of a difference for men.
What I really prefer is to not have other people pay for my sexual choices or me to have to pay for theirs when said choices don’t count as health, but as contraception.
I do too, but not having babies is more important.
Fear Mongering? You are just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Are you honestly suggesting that leaving birth control SOLEY in the hands of young men and women, IN THE THROWS OF PASSION, is a solid birth control strategy?
Do you even remember being 16? LOL You better be throwing pills on, and IUD’s and full body stockings. Oh, and abstinence programs. Toss that in, too.
Yes I do remember being 16. I was actually able to control myself. But I guess it is not an option any more. We live in a society that takes what it wants when it wants it, and don’t be foolish enough to expect more discipline from anyone. Welcome to the new world. When I decided to become sexually active, I paid for my own contraception. It wasn’t prohibitively expensive then, and it is not prohibitive now.
Of course you were able to control yourself. Okay then.
Once again, my birth control without insurance would be $90/month. That is prohibitively expensive for some people.
And you know what, at 16 I was also able to control myself (actually I thought I was asexual, that’s how controlled I was). However, from 21 years until I’m like… 70, I’m going to be sexually active. Do you recommend people use condoms until they/their partner hits menopause? That’s… 30 years of condoms?
Yeah, no, I don’t think anyone is going to do that.
I was able to control myself at 16 because I was too shy to talk to guys and no one hit on me.
30 years of condoms, particularly once you’re in a long-term relationship? Yeah…no.
If a couple can’t be bothered to buy a 2$ condom in the nearest loo, or pick one up for free, how on earth would they be bothered to apply for a course of medication through a beaurocratic government inititiative?
If they’re interested enough in birth control to want the pill in the first place they’re probably going to use condoms if its not available.
Right well I haven’t followed a lot of the comments…but I’ll mention something different about the way the condom is used versus the pill. (Keep in mind I’m speaking as a sex ed educator and not at all from personal experience with condoms).
So, the way the pill works, you have to take it regularly regardless of whether you’re having sex or not. If I am using the pill, it doesn’t matter if I have sex with one man in a year, or a different man every night, the number of pills I take is going to be the same. Thus the cost is going to be the same.
A condom, on the other hand, is something that could theoretically be ignored until a couple (or more) are in the heat of the moment. It does not require the same amount of early preparation. Think of it like the difference between first and second degree murder. (That’s a weird analogy).
So while, theoretically, a couple (or more) might get caught up in the moment and fail to purchase a condom in the nearest bathroom….a woman who is not all hot and heavy could definitely have the where-with-all to have obtained and used the pill. (This would apply to men too if there were male pills).
IDBY, try again. The full paragraph also states the following:
“also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons.”
Meaning 58% used hormonal birth control for health reasons AND contraception. Only 14% used it only for health reasons. That still leaves 58% who would probably still be taking hormonal birth control even if all the men in the world suddenly disappeared.
No you try again. This is typical stats bait and switch.
I’m sure that 58% of adults have used a kitchen knife for something other than to cut food, but it does not mean that 58% of the time a kitchen knife is used that way.
Okay, I will explain this to you, Mr. Non-Uterus-Bearing Man.
If I start taking birth control for health reasons, then it is purely non-contraceptive. However, many of these women are sexually active ALSO which means it can double as a contraceptive. It is INCIDENTAL that they are having sex and so have the pill apply as a contraceptive also. Basically those women who use the pill for health reasons will probably end up having sex at some point, which means it will THEN function as a contraceptive ALSO.
58% still holds. So, here’s some lack of respect to match yours:
No you try again.
Plus, how would you determine a “health” reason and contraception? Most of these health reasons for prescribing hormonal birth control deal with heavy periods or cramps. If that were all that was standing in the way of getting my birth control covered, I (and every other woman) would just tell our gynecologists that we had unbearably heavy periods.
Should we also only cover lung cancer treatment for those people who prove they have never smoked?
Patients lie to doctors to get drugs all the time. Abusing the system is on them.
As for people who smoke. I’ve worked at 2 companies where smokers had different rates than non smokers while the others had me paying for the smokers lifestyle cost.
So, there may be different rates, why does that mean it shouldn’t be covered. I would think it would end up being a lower rate for women on birth control as they are unlikely to get pregnant and have all the other costs related to prenatal and neonatal care.
This debate is not about what the coverage should be or what shouldn’t be? Or what the cost should be and who pays. The rules have already been presented by Obama as a Kingly mandate. And his mandate does not include opting out nor different rates. You do get that right?
You are in the minority on the question of access to birth control. Remember: the church thing is settled. Obama is simply acting on behalf of the majority of Americans, men and women, who support greater access to birth control. That is not Kingly behavior. That is good representative government. You do get that right? (No, of course you don’t agree with me. Hence the annoying cycle of back and forth between us.)
Contraception should not be covered by health coverage because it is less about health and more about lifestyle. Why somebody needs contraception??? Because they indulge in some high risk games. If health insurance companies were to pay for contraception, they would have to shift the burden of its cost to the premium paid by insurers raising the cost and mind it contraception is not one time affair, it continues for long time. Tell me why Miss V should share the cost of protection afforded to Miss S which she needs due to her own indiscretion.
More unwanted pregnancies is what’s high risk here, plain and simple. And we all pay FOREVER for that. Both in the damaged lives of unwanted children or in abortions.
But in the United States we have a proud tradition of refusing to address prevention in order to pay more in the long run for drastically less effective and efficient emergency treatment. That’s why our healthcare system is #1!
Actually our proudest tradition was for each person paying their own way. That’s way more cost effective than “emergency” or “preventative”cost redistribution.
I pay for my private insurance. As does everyone else. What is your point?
Private? You mean the health care you are mandated to buy and the birth control pills (which are typically contraception, not health) you are mandated to pay for?
Cheaper doesn’t trump freedom and responsibility for me. That’s my point.
It is private insurance. You still did not demonstrate how this translates into me not paying my own way.
By your rationale, I am also mandated to pay for children’s health who will also be covered by my employer’s insurance plan, which I will not be using.
And birth control pills are medical prescriptions to prevent a later medical condition, even when used as contraception. A medical condition that is VERY costly and can be very dangerous. So please tell me how that is not preventative care.
When kids are added to insurance that person’s premiums go up, not yours.
As I said before pills aren’t health. Trying to rationalize BCP as health is an obvious way for women to get someone else to pay. You already said you don’t want to pay $90/ month. Where do you think that cost goes? It doesn’t just disappear.
Just because you say pills aren’t a basic health care issue, doesn’t make that true.
What a limp comment. I’ve more than made my case.
If BCP’s were truly a basic health care issue a consistent law would mandate coverage of so many lifestyle things as to be absurd. But that doesn’t matter, because you don’t really want to be hamstrung by such concepts as freedom, consistency or source of payment. And neither does Obama.
IDBY.
You are making a conscious choice to be absolutely partisan in this conversation. Both in your message and in your tone. That is your choice. But I believe this kind of partisan kick ass attitude is part of why we are faltering as a nation. Because everything has gone totally binary. We have lost our ability to give and take. Imagine our forefathers 200 years ago, in some winter fort in the frozen northeast fighting like this. They wouldn’t have lasted six months.
“As I said before pills aren’t health.”
And as I have demonstrated multiple times, they are. They serve healthcare purposes beyond contraception.
As for contraception, they prevent a much more costly medical condition.
Oh, and IT DOESN’T RAISE THE COST. See #2. So, Miss V is in the clear. (Although I suspect she wants birth control coverage as well…)
So she argues.
So, let’s see. Women now paying for their own BC will, upon finding out the RC won’t be paying for their BC and they, the women now paying for their own BC will be paying for their own BC will suddenly decide to have more babies.
I get it now.
Women who don’t have health coverage because they don’t have a job, now paying for their own BC or getting it from PP, upon finding out that the RC isn’t going to pay for BC for women employed byRC institutions, will start having more babies as a kind of solidarity thingy.
It’s getting clearer.
As far as Myth 3 goes- This is a NON COMPROMISE. By definition a compromise should be acceptable to both parties at the table.
• Before the “compromise”: The RCC must offer a benefits package that includes birth control. We don’t care who pays for it.
• After the “compromise”: The RCC must offer a benefits package that includes birth control. The insurance company cannot charge the RCC or the policy holder any more money.
The BIRTH CONTROL is what is morally objectionable to the Catholic Church. The “compromise” didnt change a damn thing.
Question that I would dearly love someone to answer and do so honestly- for the birth control advocates:
1. Is your goal to ensure that all women have access to affordable birth control?
OR
2. Is your goal to force the Catholic Church to offer birth control in its benefit plans?
If your goal is number 1 why the hell aren’t you pursuing alternate methods of delivery? This whole thing is playing out as an election year game of grab-ass. Surely someone in HHS knew that the Church would have a problem with this yet they went out with it anyway without the non-compromise. The Dems’ poked the Church knowing it would howl. Any howl from the Church makes progressives swoon and voila the base is energized and everyone has forgotten about the ridiculous economic situation we’re in.
Here are some other myths:
1. Birth Control costs $100 per month. TRUTH- according to planned parenthood birth control pills cost $15-50 per month. Of course all the advocates take birth control that costs $90-100 per month. This is like some guy saying “A new car costs $47000!” Of course he is buying a new 3 series with all the bells and whistles, and not mentioning you can get functional and reliable transportation for $13000.
2. Its all about CONTROLLING WOMEN!- Truth- who is the control freak? The person who says I am not going to offer that to you however, I cannot restrict your ability to get it somewhere else OR the people saying YOU MUST OFFER THAT! One looks like a boundary the other a command.
The car analogy is really offensive. Birth control goes into your BODY–it isn’t to show off or a new toy. My body is not a car. Some women’s bodies don’t react well with certain birth control methods and there are serious risks with some of them. I’ve tried many different types of birth control (as have the VAST majority of the women I know), and it’s about finding the one that doesn’t make you feel sick and that fits in with your life. If you REALLY have to use the car analogy, at least use it in terms of buying the SAFEST car, not the one with the most bells and whistles.
OK- consider it a Volvo XC90- its super safe! Of course you didnt address the other points or the key question that I have been wondering about.
“Birth Control costs $100 per month. TRUTH- according to planned parenthood birth control pills cost $15-50 per month. Of course all the advocates take birth control that costs $90-100 per month. This is like some guy saying “A new car costs $47000!” Of course he is buying a new 3 series with all the bells and whistles, and not mentioning you can get functional and reliable transportation for $13000.”
God, I should just have this ready on copy-paste.
Not all hormonal birth control is the same. I used to be on generic birth control, but it made me severely depressed. Other women have side effects such as severe weight gain, migraines (got those too), nausea, and a whole host of other side effects. Changing the pill you are taking changes the side effects. I switched to a different pill that gives me NO side effects except the occasional mood swing or migraine. It is $90/month without insurance. Not all women can take the same pill, and sometimes the best one is a more expensive one. It’s not the the expensive one is “better” just that it is best suited for the woman taking it. So this is not a myth, you are incorrect.
“The person who says I am not going to offer that to you however, I cannot restrict your ability to get it somewhere else OR the people saying YOU MUST OFFER THAT!”
Lack of capital is a restriction on people’s activities. You can say to people who are starving, “Hey, no one is keeping you from buying food,” and it’s technically true, but they are restricted in their ability to buy food because they have no money. Same thing.
Why won’t you answer the question I have asked?
because I don’t care. I’ve heard it before, I’ve answered it before, and now I just find it offensive.
Its offensive to answer a question about what your goal is? wow. That waitress at lunch better wear body armor if she asks you what you’d like to drink.
CW. Artemis is responding to the fact that we have answered your question, and in doing so, been supportive of the good works of the church. For you to continue to ask the question, means you are not asking the question in a general way, but instead using it to quiz every individual in this dialogue.
I could pose a question to you:
1) Do you accept that along with the good works the church has done, the church has also done a lot of damage?
But I’m not asking you that question. Because, it is not my intention to force you to address the central tenants of my world view. I prefer to state my case while respecting your right to yours. When you ask over and over again, you are co-opting people’s right to address what they choose to address.
Look at the timestamp of the post. I posted it before it was responded to on another thread…
Thanks CW. My bad.
If I had to answer this every time when it has been beaten to death, I would go crazy. Choosing my own mental health over your need to be talked to, when you are not going to listen to what people tell you.
You are equatng FOOD with Birth Control?
Nope, I was explaining how lack of capital translates into de facto restrictions on behavior. You can say that people have access to things legally, but if they can’t afford them, it is the same as being denied access to those things. I could buy a giant mansion, with a pool, and a waterslide, and indoor theater. I am completely in my rights to buy one, nothing is legally stopping me, no one is restricting my access. However, lack of capital restricts my access to buying this home, as I do not have the money for it. It is de facto denied to me because I cannot afford it.
This is not related to birth control. I was pointing out that lack of capital does place restrictions on access, which was part of your argument for not covering birth control (i.e. women will still be able to access birth control)
Do you mean eating and f-ing are the same thing?
“Do you mean eating and f-ing are the same thing?”
According to some men…yeah. I’ve heard far too often the ‘dangle a steak in front of a man’ analogy when it comes to women they find attractive not having sex with them. And women denying sex or porn to their men is one of the worst sins they can imagine.
Only if you are eating out.
heheh
Here’s the thing. Anyone can buy male condoms, female condoms, and spermicide over the counter.
The most effective female-specific birth control options are NOT available over the counter. They are prescription-only, and they have to be, because they are customized to match the woman’s physiology. The cheapest Pill might work for some but cause nasty side effects in another, that’s why there are options. No, not every option costs the same. Some of them are long-term costs like monthly BC pills (ring/patch) or regular appointments to get the Shot, others are big up-front expenses (IUD, diaphragm, cervical cap) that only need to be purchased once.
Say there are two brands of condoms available. One of them promises a 99% effectiveness rate and costs $20 for a box of 10. The other promises an 80% effectiveness rate and is only $4 for a box of 10. If preventing babies is a really high priority for you, you’d want the option that gives you the most protection, right? That’s the same choice a woman has to make when it comes to prescription birth control vs. the “just use condoms” message we’re hearing. The most effective method is several times more expensive than the less-effective method. That’s why we’d like insurance to help us out with it. (I based my figures on the out-of-pocket cost for my own birth control with insurance vs. the price of a box of condoms at my local grocery store. The effectiveness rates represent hormonal BC vs. condoms with “typical use,” respectively.)
For what it’s worth, I think health insurance should cover vasectomies and any other procedure or product related to men’s sexual health, too.
I wish I knew why people keep avoiding this question…
Question that I would dearly love someone to answer and do so honestly- for the birth control advocates:
1. Is your goal to ensure that all women have access to affordable birth control?
OR
2. Is your goal to force the Catholic Church to offer birth control in its benefit plans?
Why doesn’t the Church find or form an insurance company that doesn’t offer the BC and use that for the institutions instead of asking Blue Cross and other companies that do offer this perfectly normal prescription coverage?
My goal would be to allow all insurance companies to offer this affordable BC, and have institutions that don’t agree with the BC to not pay for it. If they can’t find another company to work with that’s too bad. Or, we should have oral BC be as easy to obtain as condoms, but since it’s a medicine, it needs a prescription and so forth.
I’d prefer there to be a global insurance plan to be socialized, and private companies could work with private insurance if they didn’t like the global plan. But citizens could avail themselves of either depending on circumstance.
You didn’t really answer the question.
Point by Point-
1. So basically you are pissed that Blue Cross offers a broad product selection to its clients? I think Blue Cross is perfectly capable of crafting customized benefit plans. Even after Obamacare they’d do it. Some employers will offer benefits in excess of the mandate.
2. I think you mean FORCE because all insurance companies are already ALLOWED by law to offer birth control.
Lets be real- if you do not take your employer’s health plan in most cases they do not suddenly pay you the share THEY contribute. You only get paid your salary. You are just not paying part of the contribution out of your salary anymore so that cash is yours. Health Insurance is a benefit your employer offers you. Your employer makes the primary purchase decision. You make the decision on whether to participate or not. Health Insurance companies sell group plans to employers so they can offer it to their employees. This is why your company can change the costs and benefits annually and you just have the choice to participate or not. You cannot name your price.
3. Make Oral Birth Control more easily available – basically I think you mean cheaper and more accessible? OK- go for it. Work out how to pay for it and how to administer it without trampling over the rights of an institution that you just happen to really dislike.
4. Global Insurance Plan- from the Catholic Church’s point of view this is a good thing and good public policy.
I’m not pissed at all that Blue Cross offers a wide range of drugs and services. I think they should. Why aren’t they offering that plan for CC institutions? Are they?
So what’s the problem? I participate in a plan and I think preventative health issues and BC should be part of that plan. So do millions of women (and men).
You work out how to get an insurer that takes care of the needs of the Church instead of messing with plans that take care of me and millions of other women.
It’s a great thing so long as we abide by the Church’s beliefs even if we aren’t Catholic. We’ll get Global insurance except for women’s health care. Which millions of non Catholic (and yes, Catholic) women want. Doesn’t seem global to me.
I’m fine and dandy with Catholics not contracepting. Go for it. Don’t ask me to abide by your rules either. My guess is if God is truly omnipotent (which I’d expect God would be) God knows that you aren’t attempting to sin by participating in an insurance plan where SOME people may avail themselves of a drug that you think is sinful. This is what I do not get at all. Can you explain it to me?
OK- I’ll try via analogy using less heated terms:
Lets say you have a Mormon friend who you like to visit. As you know Mormons do not drink alcohol. Red Wine consumption significantly lowers the risk of heart disease. Therefore the Government tells your Mormon friend that they must have red wine on hand for you and serve it to you in a nice glass. However, the Government is going to buy the glass and the wine so the Mormon should be OK with that right?
Think about it from the point of view of your Mormon friend. He probably won’t mind if you go out and buy your own wine. He probably won’t mind if you get your wine from a wine coop (group purchasing power for discounts) outside of his home that he chooses not to participate in. BUT, its damn insulting not to mention demeaning and disrespectful for the government to force him to hand you the freaking glass.
I’m trying to get this. I am, I really really am.
Does the Catholic Church hand the medicine to a woman? Because I don’t think they do. I think they buy into a prescription plan that offers a wide variety of drugs that some people may or may not take, but none are required to take. I am not required to take BC or Claritin or acne meds. I can get those prescriptions filled via my insurance plan through work. I do pay some out of pocket expenses to cover my family and I pay a copay. The drugs are sitting there, I’m choosing to access them, I’m offering money out of my pocket for them currently. My employer is paying for a large pool of people. Some of that perk to me may pay for someone else’s Viagra or heart medicine. Even if I found Viagra morally objectionable, I wouldn’t fuss over the fact that others may need/want to utilize this medicine.
It’s part of a group plan.
So I can see the church being irritated they’d have to use their expenses to cover the actual BC used by an employee, but not that the insurance coverage/company offers it at all to the employee without the church paying for that part of it. That’s what’s making my head hurt.
Julie,
See my comment immediately below. I may have hit the wrong reply button, but it was supposed to be directed to one of your comments.
Also, consider this: I have heard, but have not verified, that some of these organizations are self-insuring. I would not be surprised if that were the case. That is, they don’t go to Blue Cross. They pay for care directly. So, this compromise is not really a compromise if the party in question self-insures.
-Jut
Why work for the church if you don’t agree on this issue?
And, why is this a national debate when hardly anybody that disagrees with their stance works for the church?
Or how about this:
The Government says that the insurers have to provide coverage for abortions and euthanasia. The Catholic Church says they don’t like those things either.
Funny, with the Hyde Amendment, the Government says it won’t pay for abortions. They have a political justification for that. No, it is not that they hate women. It is that they would get drummed out of office because their constitutents have a moral objection to it.
With euthanasia, again, those are not covered. Most states have laws against physician-assisted suicide. Even if you call it health care, Obama would not be stupid enough to bring this up. And, to be frank, because men die too, he can’t make euthanasia out to be a matter of women’s health.
So, he picks contraception because most people are not opposed to it, he can attack the Church without too much blowback, and it gets the camel’s nose under the tent.
And, it makes him look good to his base.
-Jut
CW,, I support #1. As far as I know the church – not just houses of worship but also hospitals and universities — has a waiver from covering employees’ contraception costs. So, #2 is a done deal. Frankly, I’m not sure I understand why birth control is outlawed by the church. But then again, I don’t understand why priests can’t marry. In each case, I think it is harming the church. Because it forces women to willfully ignore church doctrine and it causes fewer and fewer men to become priests. The fact is, the church may someday change this doctrine. It has made changes in the past.
Mark- the compromise isnt a compromise. Think about it- the Church has to offer a benefit it finds morally objectionable in either case. Forget the money, the birth control is what the Church finds morally objectionable. Either the Church is free to disagree with you or you are going to compel it by government force.
Celibacy of Priests is a discipline, not dogma. It can and might change. There are rites within the the Roman Catholic Church where Priests can be married. The most visible rite within the Roman Catholic Church- the Roman Rite- does not allow Priests to marry.
Birth Control- whether you disagree with it or not the Church position on contraception has been consistent since the beginning. I doubt you’re all that interested (its not incredibly entertaining for a non-Catholic) but you can look up quotes from the 1-3 centuries AD (or CE if you prefer) that unequivocally state opposition to contraception as a matter of morality.
Actually, CW, I’ve kind of caught on to the fact that the church isn’t going to bend on the issue of birth control. LOL. I’m not suggesting the church can compromise on matters of church doctrine. My point is, we can find a way to help the very limited number of people who work for catholic institutions but aren’t able to access birth control but want it. The number is relatively small.
We have always respected religion in America. That hasn’t changed. So, I see no value in banging my head on the church door. As I said. It’s a done deal. I think maybe the compromise comes in trying the respect each other, those inside and outside the church.
I didn’t see your question when I was typing my comment. Personally, my goal is to ensure that all women have access to affordable birth control.
Then why kick the Catholic Church? The RCC tends to ally itself with almost all progressive social causes with the exception of abortion and contraception. Remember the immigration debates? Look at the size of Catholic Social Services- do you have any clue how many poor and disadvantaged people they serve?
Closer to home- My Parish HOUSES- literally rents and furnishes apartments- for homeless families. I lead a ministry to help people find jobs. This ministry served hundreds of people free of charge.
CW, I don’t mean to imply contempt for the Catholic Church. Liberation Theology came out the Catholic Church in Central and South America. The Church has a lot to be proud of. But, I think on one side, some people have demonized the church AND on the other side, some people have demonized the motives of birth control advocates, all for political gain.
That sad fact is we are all very reactive to hot button dogmatic political agendas. We can settle our differences and find middle ground if we don’t get bogged down in fire fights.
CW, I don’t mean to imply contempt for the Catholic Church. Many good works have came out the Catholic Church. The Church has a lot to be proud of on a wide range of economic and social justice issues. But, I think on one side, some people have demonized the church AND on the other side, some people have demonized the motives of birth control advocates, all for political gain.
Most of us on either side can settle our differences and find middle ground if we don’t get bogged down in fire fights.
I would LOVE to love the Catholic Church. I love things they do. I’m not religious per se, but have no issue at all with the good works they do. The whole women/BC thing is a real dealbreaker for me and for many people.
My comment said nothing about the Catholic church. My point was more that for a lot of women, effective birth control without insurance is not affordable. I made this point in contention with those who say “If it’s so important to you, buy it yourself, or just use condoms.” For those women who get insurance through an employer and that insurance does not cover birth control for whatever reason, they can always drop their work benefit and sign up for an individual plan – but that too can be prohibitively costly.
To KKZ, Julie, and Mark,
How about this: have Government pay for birth control pills.
What really disgusts me about Obama’s compromise is this:
He says, “you religious groups are going to have to offer insurance coverage for birth control pills.” (I am paraphrasing.)
When they blew back at him, he decided to hang it on SOMEONE ELSE.
He said, “fine, you don’t have to do it, but the insurance companies will have to offer it for your employees free of charge.”
All he has done is ordered a second, less-principled group to do what the first, more principled group refused to do.
He looked like a coward. He should have said, “the Government will pay for it.” Why didn’t he do that?
My answer: it was a political decision. He would have gotten creamed politically. He knows that enough people don’t want it. But, if he can coerce the Church or the insurance companies to do it, there is less political risk for him.
-Jut
In the middle of a recession, in an election year, you really expect the president to promise free birth control for all the country’s women and have the government pick up the bill? No WAY would that have flown through our current Congress, either.
The money for these services has to come from SOMEWHERE. If the women can’t pay it, and the religiously-affiliated employing institution refuses, I can see why Obama would turn to the insurance companies. Mandating that they cover it? Hrm, that seems a bit extreme, but it also seems like the only way to get anything done in government these days.
Besides, even if the government offered to cover it, we’d have the same shitstorm on our hands. Instead of people bitching that their health insurance premiums cover a medication they are morally opposed to for other people to use, you’d have people bitching that their tax dollars are doing the same.
P.S. The government does contribute financially to organizations that provide low-cost or free birth control, pelvic exams, etc. Like Planned Parenthood. Except oops, now the funding for THAT organization is under attack too.
Oops indeed!
Of course it’s cowardly, but lots of women will be quite thankful to have their lifestyle choices labeled as “health” and paid for by someone else and so will overlook his being so yellow.
It is preventative care and so it is health.
Women are going to have sex. It is going to happen. It is going to happen mainly during their reproductive years. It’s not so much a lifestyle choice as it is a life.
Would you prefer we all become nuns or lesbians? Well, that still wouldn’t work, as doctors are recommending hormonal birth control to nuns in order to prevent ovarian cancer, which is higher in women who don’t get pregnant in their lives. And 58% of women would still be taking hormonal birth control for health reasons anyways, as I noted above.
Yup and men are going to have sex too, but I don’t expect you to pay for the beds we have sex in. 58% of pill use is not for something other than contraception and even if it were there is 42% that should not be covered. Yet it’s a mandate.
Free lunch entitlement at work.
“men are going to have sex too, but I don’t expect you to pay for the beds we have sex in.”
Those beds don’t prevent pregnancy.
I already explained the 58%.
IDBY: I have already had this same experience with you on the Oral Sex article. You do not listen to what people say, you just want to yell your opinion over and over again and say that’s not what you think. Which is very amusing because on both of these issues what you are refusing to listen are opinions from women about women’s experiences. Considering you are not one, would it not be beneficial to hear points of view from someone with different experiences from you?
Here’s a question: if you are a dating a woman and you are primarily using the pill for contraception, and she requested you go in 50/50 on it for her, because her insurance doesn’t cover it and you are also reaping the benefit, would be okay with her insurance not covering it then?
Do you understand how you need to get a prescription for birth control? In order for a woman to get a prescription, she needs to have a pelvic exam. A pap smear. Surely you know a woman that has had one of these, right? Pap smears are done to ensure that a woman’s reproductive system is healthy and that there aren’t signs of disorders or cancer. They do this by swabbing the cervix, as well as physically feeling the pelvis for signs of lumps or pain. If a doctor then finds that a woman is at risk for a reproductive disorder, like ovarian cysts or something of the like, then he may prescribe her oral contraception to help treat such disorders so that the woman doesn’t lose her ovaries or her uterus. Both of which are costly.
A pap smear is something that is also covered by insurance. However, if a woman isn’t covered by insurance, then she will need to go to a place like Planned Parenthood to get a pelvic exam so that she may get a prescription for birth control. And every time she needs her prescription renewed, she must get another pelvic exam. But the people who find abortions morally objectionable are also trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Which means that these women won’t be able to get a pelvic exam to get the prescription, and if she needs hormonal treatment to help prevent her losing an ovary or her uterus, then what, she’s SOL?
Or “she could just use condoms”. Right. Because condoms are so effective at treating ovarian cysts.
I assume he does know that but is baiting you just the same. It is for health. We mostly all accept that save for the folks who have religious issues with it and the people having sport with us. But you are honing wonderful arguments. This is awesome practice!
CW you probably won’t get a direct answer. But I will try to give you one. This issue is not about health. It is about Religious Liberty. An answer requires that people think about the Contraception issue within the context of liberty and freedom granted under the first amendment. However, most everyone is framing this as a health issue which is not the issue concerning the Catholic church and wether it should provide contraception. The Catholic church and its institutions do not believe in Contraception. I think it is dumb belief, but that is their belief, and they have the constitutional right to believe as they wish. They also have the right not to be forced to go against their beliefs by the federal government.
Women who go to a Catholic college, and demand that Catholic institutions bend sacred held beliefs to women’s wishes, ought to pick another college or institution. I understand that the institutions do not pass out the contraceptives directly, but forcing them to do the bidding through someone else’s hand is equally blasphemous to them. I do not want to live in a country where citizens can impose their desires upon religious institutions through force by government. Trust me, if we allow this violation of the constitution and religious freedom to prevail, regardless of what side you are on, it won’t end with this issue.
You and I are on the exact same page on this in terms of Religious Liberty. The growth of governmental power and intrusion on individual rights over the last 11-12 years scare the heck out of me. People using the government as a billy club to force their values on people drives me nuts regardless of whether the right or the left does it. I’m a firm believer in the adage- the government that governs best; governs least. I do differ from my Church on that point. Thankfully its not a matter of Faith or Morals so I am in the clear.
This might be controversial but I personally think Sandra Fluke has acted like an asshole. I won’t equate her to Rush because, in my opinion, Rush has such a long history of acting like an asshole that his lead in the Asshole Olympics is pretty much insurmountable. Ms. Fluke is a minor league asshole with a chance at moving into the big leagues with a few more shots at the big time. In the DC metro area there are a bunch of different law schools. If she got into Georgetown surely she was smart enough to know that it was a Jesuit school and what that entailed. Why not go to American, GWU (nearly the same darn neighborhood!), GMU, Maryland, or pop down the road to UVA?
You can easily answer your own question. She could have entered another great university since she was smart enough to get into Georgetown. But Georgetown fits an agenda and provides a vehicle for her to make a difference. I do not know if this is why she chose Georgetown, but I think it is pretty clear that she saw an opportunity there once on board. She wants to change it to accommodate women, as she thinks it should. She has a history of feminist women’s studies, and this is understandably a mission to her. She has a right to study what she wants, and believe as she wishes. Good luck to her. But she is intent on fundamentally changing the system which will trample on the separation of church and state. The separation needs to work both ways, regardless of one’s political biases. That is where I draw the line in the sand. Again, I cannot stress this enough. This is not about birth control. This is about freedom disguised as a discussion on reproductive health. After all, who isn’t for health? It is a lot easier to get people on board when they think they are doing something good. That is why this is so heinous to me.
Julie. The requirement would apply to the RC insurance company as well. Many coverages are mandated–mammograms, mental health, drug addiction, varying by state. Forming your own insurance company won’t get you away from the externally-imposed mandate. And citizens can avail themselves of many companies. I live in Michigan whose BC/BS has a pretty good family of individual plans. Other states…maybe, maybe not. No idea. But the companies I used had different contracts for different states based on state-imposed mandates. So if the Vatican Mutual Insurance Company wanted to do business in a state requiring BC coverage, it would have to offer BC coverage or not do business in that state.
KKZ. Does “access” mean somebody else paying for it, or does it mean covenient sources of supply?
I think “access” means you get it free now. Unfortunately, in order to stay out of the privacy of peoples bedrooms, and provide them free birth control, we have to allow them into the privacy of our wallets. The costs have to go somewhere.
Access means de juro and de facto access. If you do not have the capital to pay for birth control, you do not have de facto access.
Artemis
Does the lack of capital mean the first, last, and only resort for said capital is the government?
As I said earlier, hold a bake sale. The overhead is considerably less than sending it through the DC meatgrinder. More effective.
Have it as a budget line in a church mission budget–not the RC, of course–or have PP provide it. Wait. Have PP provide it….. Something is coming to mind. Wait…..wait…..wait…..
Almost had it .
You can no doubt think of other ways to provide the capital. Besides which, you are insisting that other people pay for the BC for somebody’s desire to have consequence-free sex, which is a choice. Person A pays for Person B’s admission ticket to….whatever Person B wants.
However, if your answers are the government should force the RC to provide this, then the issue never was BC, was it?
“Does the lack of capital mean the first, last, and only resort for said capital is the government?”
No, and that’s not what this is about. This is about private insurance providing coverage for preventative care, including birth control, which would allow de facto access to birth control for those who could not previously afford it. I do not see how the capital is coming from the government.
“Besides which, you are insisting that other people pay for the BC for somebody’s desire to have consequence-free sex, which is a choice. Person A pays for Person B’s admission ticket to….whatever Person B wants.”
Everyone pays for their own insurance. Other people on the same plan are paying for my birth control in the same way I am paying for their cholesterol meds or what have you. Also, you are focusing on “consequence-free” sex, which is only facilitated birth control. The consequences being prevented are pregnancies which are more costly in prenatal ad neonatal care than birth control. Why are you not worried about covering the costs for pregnant women, which are ALSO covered under this plan and are also a choice?
“Why doesn’t the Church find or form an insurance company that doesn’t offer the BC and use that for the institutions instead of asking Blue Cross and other companies that do offer this perfectly normal prescription coverage?”
Some church bodies Baptist, Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS), self-fund their insurance coverage. So telling them “Don’t worry about it, the insurance company will pay for it” is still telling them you must pay for it!!
First of all, birth control pills have been included in most major health insurance plans for decades.
Decades. Not years. Decades. Those that don’t cover it based on religious ideology amount to 0% of companies/business entities. So, why the fuss over nothing and essentially no one? Why would anyone go to work for the church knowing their policy when they could go elsewhere just as easily?
This entire debate affects statistically no one. It is a political show to make a point, and poke out the eye of a political/ideological rival, namely certain religious institutions.
It wasn’t really a show, it was part of the overall health care plan. Insurance plans were being standardized with Obama’s Affordable Health Care act, and the coverage of birth control was one of MANY ways of standardizing insurance.
Obviously if you don’t agree with covering any of those things, you would not agree with covering birth control. But it wasn’t a deliberate slight, it was part of a larger package.
Why isn’t there a national debate on the coverage of high blood pressure medication? Because it is included in virtually every insurance customer’s plan. It’s not an issue. The same is true of BC pills, with the Catholic Church being about the only exception – which was known and acceptable to people who chose to work for the church or go to church offilated schools.
To show that it was absolutely deliberate, Ms. Fluke specifically chose to go to one of the few places that she could make this a national issue, Georgetown Law School. Not to get a law degree at the best available school or the closest school, but so that she could make this a national issue and excoriate the Catholic Church.
To be clear, I would personally never work for the Catholic Church or even attend one of its schools, but I don’t like seeing pompous rich people thrown their weight around like this, and that’s what this is.
Many people here saying the costs will go up but none of them are countering number 2 when they do. Also what demographic has the hardest time paying for the contraception? The under 25s don’t tend to have jobs or incomes that will cover contraceptives easily. I would imagine thats the group that needs it the most am I wrong?
Under 25s are supposed to be covered by their parents insurance.
I can’t speak for all under 25s, but graduate students tend to be covered by their university’s insurance if they have an assistantship. At least it should be offered.
But I’m not entirely sure if they are the ones with the greatest difficulty in paying for contraception. I don’t even know if it is an issue of difficulty so much as what many people (including Obama, apparently) believe is a basic preventative measure and so is covered under his insurance act which mandates the coverage of preventative care.
Three myths in this article:
#1 Everyone isn’t being asked to pay for the pill:
They are, if the pill is paid for by health insurance and you pay for health insurance, you’re paying for the pill.
#2 Birth control is budget neutral because it offsets the costs of unwanted pregnancies:
According to the article posted only 12% of women opt to use the pill. I have a sneaking feeling that they’re not the ones likely to go out and have unprotected sex in the first place. I’m not convinced that making the pill free to anyone will mean everyone making responsible reproductive choices.
#3 Fair enough, myth debunked. I don’t support this incidentally: I think the choice of cover should by the individual’s, not the company’s, but I recognise that this is a controversial thing and some compromise may be necessary.
Hi Peter. Good morning to you.
“They are, if the pill is paid for by health insurance and you pay for health insurance, you’re paying for the pill.” Just because you refuse to provide birth control, doesn’t make that person disappear. By refusing access to birth control, you are still going to take a hit for the cost of their unwanted pregnancy. Either under the terms of the health insurance, or in the public emergency room. The cost difference is huge.
“According to the article posted only 12% of women opt to use the pill.” Public policy isn’t a zero sum game. You encourage and educate people about birth control. Then you make it easier to get. I’ll take whatever percentage of people want to use it. And consider it a win.
I posted this comment on another article for this site on this same issue. I would like to present it here as well, because I think it is at the heart of this debate.
People, until we realize that this political debate is not ultimately about birth control, we will continuously be manipulated like puppets doing the bidding of politicians and political interest groups. This is about power and control of our liberty disguised as a debate about contraception. Our leaders in government are encouraging us not to debate it any other way. There is a reason for that.
We now have at the top level, a government that is forcing a religious institution to provide to its flock and its associates, a service that is against its sacred held beliefs. Wether those services are given directly, or through the hand of another, is irrelevant to the church. I feel the belief is misguided, but it is their belief, and it is none of my business to force them to abandon it. It is unconstitutional for the government to do so.
This is an argument about liberty, not contraception. The government keeps us at each other’s throats, thinking this is about contraception. They will set a very dangerous precedent here if they succeed. I guarantee you, it will not end here. It never does.
There are many of you who are arguing for providing contraception to religious institutions who do not believe in it. But note that there will come a time when it will be your turn in the barrel, where your ox is gored by government intrusion. Who will speak for you? Maybe our leaders will convince us once again, that it is really about another issue. We will argue about it, as they intend for us to do, while we take our eye off the ball. Why not, it worked so well the last time.
If we started framing this debate in its true context, we would to see a them panic in Washington. They will back off this issue faster than you can imagine. It is then that the truth behind this well planned fiasco will be revealed.
But go ahead, keep talking about pills and health. The powers that be have us in the palm of their hand.
Reply
Let me begin by saying the religious institutions will not be providing birth control. That is a done deal. I’m not speaking about that in this post. Religion has won that right. That fight is over. So, I’m not going to engage on that question anymore.
***
I will however, seek to explain why making access to birth control AS EASY AS POSSIBLE is a goal of mine.
For example:
Some schools in California have built in health clinics that offer, under California law, birth control to anyone 16 or older without parental consent. In those schools, unwanted pregnancies are down by 50%. I’m not advocating sex among high school kids. But I’m not pretending it will turn out well if we ignore the realities of human sexual behavior.
NPR did a report in this yesterday:
“Erika Cuevas is the liaison between the health center and the school. She also was once a Lincoln High student. Cuevas says that since the clinic opened 10 years ago the school’s high pregnancy rate has gone down.
“So back in about 2000 there was about 15 to 16 teenagers that I was aware of pregnant on campus, and now as far as I know there’s about 8 students pregnant,” Cuevas says.
Cuevas says students need a pass to come to the clinic. And sometimes they get a green card for the so-called sensitive services. That’s code for the birth control pills, STD testing and the morning-after pill. And Cuevas says that rubs some parents the wrong way.”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/03/06/148066270/la-school-health-centers
The process is not easy. It’s hard on parents and its filled with challenging side issues. But if we can keep kids from getting pregnant because of one mistake, their lives will be dramatically changed for the better. We’re talking eight out of 1,600 students. So we’re not talking about kids running amok. But we are talking about a specific group of kids who are, AND WILL ALWAYS BE, at risk for unwanted pregnancy.
And this is why some of us advocate for access to birth control and education when ever and where ever possible. Not to advocate for a lack of responsibility but to try and limit unwanted pregnancy while also advocating for responsible behavior.
Mark
I believe Ms.Fluke also wants gender reassignment paid for. This was never about BC. Never. As you know.
Cite please.
Not even relevant to what Mark was talking about.
Cite please. Which is a polite way of saying I think your watching too much Fox News.
I am not arguing the fact that birth control is an issue worth talking about. And I am not arguing its merits. I think birth control should be available when possible. I stand by my post that this particular debate is a diversion from the real issue which is religious freedom and liberty. We are being encouraged by the current administration and the media to frame it as strictly a reproductive rights issue. It is not.
By the way, whether religious institutions are suppose to provide the pills by handing them out themselves, or through the efforts of someone else via insurance companies, it is a religious freedom issue to them. They don’t see the difference.They object to it on the grounds of religious freedom, and they have a right to do so, regardless of how you and I see it. The question is, does the government have the right to insert itself. It does not.
This is why I don’t think the religious right will ever understand the secular left and vice versa. The entire last paragraph of yours had me nodding along in agreement and then you concluded that “The question is, does the government have the right to insert itself. It does not.” Which made no sense to me. I don’t see an intrusion of the government on religious rights. I see religions infringing on individual rights and requesting exceptions from the government.
If religion has no place in the government, why does the Catholic church keep inserting itself into political affairs? Why are they allotted exceptions from government mandates when others don’t get such a privilege?
So you know what, however this is framed, as a birth control issue, as a women’s rights issue, as a religious freedom issue, or as a government mandate for insurance issue, my opinion would not change.
Mark. I have gone to the trouble of finding cites in the past. You can imagine how many minds were changed. Point here is that Ms. Fluke isn’t an innocent student run over by those nasty patriarchal patriarchs. Her background and her interests are not as the dems would have you believe. As you know, but hope the rest of us don’t, every poster child hauled out to do a weeper on the 6:30 news, or in front of Congress, has been a fraud. Back from Hillary’s first attempt. Every. Single. One.
Artemis. There’s a difference. The government makes laws and punishes those who disobey. The church, and any other activist group, says things and hopes people listen.
There’s a difference.
Religion in this case–we’re not Pakistan–does not restrict individual rights. You listen to them, or you don’t. Your choice.
There’s a difference.
The only retort I have to that is the same goes for any Republican commenter, victim, weeper, rallyer. If we do political theater, so does your side. Part of the problem is then no one believes anyone.
Mark. Just for grins, search for –Fluke “gender reassignment”–A number of pages of hits. I’m sure you will take the fallback position that the sources can’t be trusted. That one wore out, too.
So you can pretend not to know.
But it wore out.
Jeez, you guys.
“Here’s a question: if you are a dating a woman and you are primarily using the pill for contraception, and she requested you go in 50/50 on it for her, because her insurance doesn’t cover it and you are also reaping the benefit, would be okay with her insurance not covering it then?”
That’s a good question, Artemis. And if condoms are so great, then why am I constantly hearing guys complain about them? What about the morning after pill if something goes wrong? Are you willing to come out with me in the morning and split the cost with me? What about paying for the kid for 18 years or dealing with an abortion? What if you have a mistress and she can’t afford birth control? Isn’t it so much better to have the safety net there? Do you really think that most of the rich white men fighting against birth control and birth control coverage don’t have sex? I guess they can at least throw money at the problem.
Why should men have to pay anything regarding a woman’s pregnancy? Your body, your choice, your responsibility.
Aya.
Good point. If he won’t go halfers with you, maybe he’s a loser. Good way to find out early.
Congrats.
Richard – what’s your take on property tax subsidies given to churches by groups of people – let’s say homosexuals – for an institution that uses some of those tax savings to lobby, in various ways, against the very group who is providing said subsidy?
elissa
I think the various governmental organizations have looked at the First Amendment and figured it applies to property taxes. I am not a lawyer and haven’t figured whether that’s a legit argument. Unlike other 501c3 organizations, most churches have substantial property which requires fire and police protection and so on. The biggest lobbying organization, protesting against, say, the Keystone Pipeline to use a current example, and the tens of thousands of jobs that exist, or not, only needs a modest office. Donations to 501c3s are tax deductible, as are donations to churches, which I think is a bigger benefit to the organizations than being excused from property taxes.
But I belong to the PC(USA), which lobbies for a number of things only the SDS would find a good idea. So if we deny property tax exclusions on your theory, we’d be looking a what they lobby for. My church would retain the exclusion and the RC would lose it.
Not a good idea, imo, to vary tax exclusions based on beliefs and advocacy. There are restrictions on the types of advocacy allowed without jeopardizing your tax-favored status. This is generally ignored when politicians want to campaign in black churches, but it’s generally a concern for the various hierarchs in other churces. Tax-exempt status is too valuable to risk.