Christina Cauterucci: Why 'The Real L Word' Is Bad For Lesbians
Jeanne Faulkner: The State of the World's Soccer Moms
For those of you paying anywhere from $10 to $60 a month for birth control (and that's just for the old-fashioned Pill option), or for those of you left without health insurance for one reason or another, listen up! This month, experts from many different fields will gather over coffee and muffins to discuss what, if any, birth control methods should be covered under the "ObamaCare" health-care reform bill.
Once again ladies, our wombs -- and the possible children that could come out of them -- are a hot topic.
The question on everyone's muffin-eating lips: Is birth control preventive medicine?
A lot of health experts say it is; women need access to affordable family-planning options so that they have control over whether or not their sexual encounters will lead to a pregnancy.
The other side of the fence says that birth control is a lifestyle choice, not a medical necessity. In fact, National Catholic Bioethics Center president John Haas had this to say about the debate: "We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance."
We hear what they're saying, but with 50 percent (at last count) of all pregnancies reported as being accidental, it seems like a lot of people (not just women) are not using any method to manage their reproductive systems.
So, ladies, keep your eyes and ears open for the outcome of these breakfast debates about your ovaries. No matter if birth control is something you use, something you can barely afford, or something that you believe is bad for you, this debate affects you.
Comments:
Add a comment
Tuesday 02 November
By Former Neighbor
I oppose this. It's ridiculous for part of the population to subsidize the other's sexual escapades.
This is a lifestyle choice, and its optional. I don't like the quasi-terrorist threats of saying "if you don't pay for it, a bunch of people will ruin their lives." We shouldn't be held hostage by irresponsible behavior.
The idea this is even being considered is absurd.
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Katie
Birth control has uses other than pregnancy prevention. Please do your research before bringing this up in personal and making a total fool of yourself.
Tuesday 02 November
By andrea
im lucky enough to live in california where i have my bc provided for free through the california public access coverage, california already has its own public healthcare. I think it would be really great in other states which oppose free bc and abortions. I think a woman's body is controlled by her own decisions, and women everywhere should have access to free birthcontrol. It is our right to have sex, and love sex. we should also be able to protect ourselves
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Ariel
I think bc should totally be covered by "ObamaCare." The money spent preventing pregnancy is nothing compared to the money spent on women & children on welfare.
And even when I'm not having sex, I still need birth control. Before I started taking the pill I was missing at least 3 days of work every month, because I was in to much pain to function.
Reply
Wednesday 01 December
By Meus Somes
If it is made available for free there will be a lot less unplanned pregnancies, less money will be spent on medicaid covering the expecting mother and the child after it is born. Face it this would be a very good addition to the health care reform bill. Just because it's passed doesn't mean you have to take it right? As far as the religious groups, let's keep in mind there is a separation of religion and government in this country for a reason. What we do with our bodies is our business not the church's. Or would they prefer abortions? No matter what you cant make everyone happy.
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Kimberly
In the UK, where I lived for several years, all contraception is free through the National Health Service. I never heard a word of controversy about it. Socialized medicine is far from perfect, but this is one area where they get it right. The personal and social costs of unwanted pregnancy (monetary and otherwise) vastly outweigh the cost of birth control.
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Theda
I am fortunate enough to live inn Australia, where we have free healthcare and government subsidized medication.
The reality is that the government will pay out more in welfare for children born to families that don't want them or can't afford them than it will by subsidizing the price of birth control. All ethical and moral objections aside, it simply makes economic sense.
Reply
Tuesday 02 November
By Jax
Birth control is not just for "family planning". I know many woman, myself included, who count on the hormones in birth control to treat other medical conditions. The "yay no babies" effect of the birth control is a happy second to the relief I get from my POCS and horrendous anemic causing periods. I really wish some articles on this health care debate would recognize that birth control is not just used to treat one "condition" any more.
Reply
Tuesday 02 November
By Meg
Yeah, there are a lot of people,including myself, who have to use birth control not just for family planning, but to treat other things. Without it, my periods get so bad that I get severely anemic and am in so much pain it takes me out for a few days. It's also used to treat ovarian cysts (I think it's cysts) and other things. So boo to "not being a medical necessity" you Republican asshat. Luckily I am in Canada where this isn't even an issue.
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Natalie
I agree with Meg and Jax. Birth control pills are not just for preventing pregnancy. These politicos pointing judgmental fingers at women should know they are not just playing with contraceptives but with medications which keep women healthy and, at times, functioning members of society. If they still think the pill should be nixed then they should off-set that decision by allowing paid time off for women when they have their period (like maternity leave) each month ;)
Reply
Wednesday 03 November
By Taryn
The fact that some health insurance plans cover medication for erectile dysfunction and at the same time deny coverage for oral contraceptives is a travesty. Birth control should necessarily be covered for all women who choose to take it.
Reply
Friday 05 November
By brasskeysja
I agree with Katie. There are other reasons for BC. I was not sexual activity until college but my doctor had me on BC in high school due to heavy bleeding and cramps. I had to go home from school because I almost passed out twice. I also didn't have a regular cycle. Now I can know my ovulation week, my premenstrual week and my period week.
Reply
Monday 08 November
By Nikki
Birth Control should definitely be free to the public. I agree it is a lifestyle choice and those who oppose the idea don't need to take birth control. But again, like other people are saying... birth control has many other uses other than preventing pregnancy. I take birth control because I suffer from really painful ovarian cysts... and birth control keeps them to a minimum, otherwise I am in pain a lot, and not just during that time of the month, but all the time... People need to realize that having birth control available to the public is a necessity.
Reply
Friday 05 November
By Kara
I take birth control to reduce the cysts that occur on my ovaries. I've been on it since I was 13 because I lost an ovary due to cysts. I don't take it to prevent pregnancies because I'm not sexually active and if I were I would use condoms. I want to have children one day and if I do I have to stay on my pills or else I could lose my other ovary. For people like me it IS a medical necessity.
Reply
Saturday 06 November
By jasmine
Because of birth control it controlled my cyst from erupting o.o and keeps my period regular because i used to be irregular like missing it 3 months out of the yr , not having your period is bad. -the doctor kept accusing me of being pregnant and sexually active (I was a virgin o.o so how the hell could i be prego) i was like wtf am i the next virgin marry?-
so seriously it should be covered it has a lot of medical advantages.
Reply
Saturday 06 November
By Kelcha
I start to boil with rage whenever I see that a religious group is weighing in on a women's health issue. Whether they call it a "Bioethics" center or not, all they REALLY are is a group of old white guys telling me what they think I should do with my body under the guise of following God's orders. Last time I checked, God hasn't been feeding and clothing all of the unplanned children resulting from "his" edicts.
Reply
Sunday 07 November
By Eliza
The vast majority of married and single straight people I know use birth control because they don't want children they can't afford to take care of. Using birth control is a responsible ADULT choice. In other words, moral behavior.
The cost of unplanned pregnancy is huge, not just from a financial standpoint, but because many (though of course not all) of the resulting children suffer neglect and abuse as a result of the fact that their parents were unable or unwilling to care for them. These children grow up unable to care for themselves. The cost of birth control is relatively inexpensive and is an important element to a free and moral society where people are given real choices and respect is given to those choices.
Being a parent is hard, and it isn't for everyone. Frankly, the idea that everyone who doesn't want to procreate should abstain from sex is ridiculous, and highly impractical. A child should never be a "punishment" for having sex. That, I guess is what I object to in the tone of so many who condemn birth control.
Reply
Monday 08 November
By Alicia
I feel like you took every point I try to make in every argument on modern morals and summed them all up neatly in the nice little package. For that, you are my hero.
Tuesday 09 November
By Traci
I hope that they allow it to be covered under the bill. It would really big a great and big step forward for everyone, especially women and our reproductive rights and health.
Reply