The Real Cost of Contraceptives

Why should health insurance companies provide contraceptives?  From Nancy Folbre on Economix.

1. "In a recent Guttmacher Institute study of women at 22 family planning clinics in 13 states, the most frequently cited reason given for using contraception was inability to take care of a baby at the time."

2. "...unintended pregnancy costs American taxpayers roughly $11 billion each year." (same study)

3. "A report by Adam Thomas published in March by the Brookings Institution shows that unintended pregnancies are disproportionately concentrated among women who are unmarried, teenage and poor."

4. "...these pregnancies set in motion a series of unfortunate outcomes that effectively reproduce poverty." (same report)

5. "...people need to protect themselves, pre-emptively, from carelessness that can lead to costly consequences."

6. "A recent study in St. Louis enrolled more than 9,000 adolescent and adult women at risk of unintended pregnancy into a study that provided contraceptive counseling and offered participants the reversible contraceptive method of their choice at no cost....  The researchers reported a clinically and statistically significant reduction in abortion rates, repeat abortions and teenage birth rates."

If all women in the U.S. had access to free or low cost contraceptives and counseling, the financial benefits for families and the country would be tremendous.

Ms. Folbre said, "private choices are constrained by public policies."  I tried to think of a comparable example from men's medicine practices that is controlled by public policy the same way contraceptives for women are but could not.  When men want a particular medication (like Viagra) paid for by health insurance companies, it's done.  So why is this not the same for women?

Peaceful Protestors Arrested

Ladies, do you think your civil rights are the same as gun rights activists?  Let's compare.

On January 18, 2010, gun rights activists marched on Richmond, Virginia, to support laws that would allow concealed guns on school property, in courtrooms, and in houses of worship.

A pro-gun, pro-states rights rally at the state Capitol this morning drew roughly 1,000 people who were encouraged afterward to file into the General Assembly Building to lobby their legislators. (Richmond-Times Dispatch)

Some in the crowd were carrying weapons.  Riot police were not called and no one was arrested.

On March 3, 2012, women's rights activists marched on Richmond, Virginia, to protest laws that would force a woman to have an ultrasound before having an abortion.  Most of the protestors were women.  When women walked around police officers telling them they could not protest in front of the Capitol, riot police were called. 

Disobeying police orders is often a good way to get in trouble, but things spun out of control remarkably quickly, as the video shows. The protestors, remaining peaceful and chanting, "This is what democracy looks like!" march up to the building, plant themselves on the steps, and lock arms. Suddenly, the handful of cops are supplemented by a squad of heavily armored riot police. After them come combat-fatigued, masked officers with what appear to be shotguns and automatic rifles. (the Atlantic)

Riot police "controlled" the crowd by holding plastic shields, and 31 protestors were arrested for trespassing. (Video) 

Since the Capitol is public property, how were they trespassing?  And if the gun rights advocates were allowed to protest at the Capitol building, and were even invited inside, why were the women's rights advocates not allowed on the Capitol steps?  Both groups appeared to be peaceful, however, as far as we know, none of the women's rights activists were carrying guns.

What is obvious from the 2010 and 2012 events is the extent Gov. Bob McDonnell and his conservative legislators will go to get what they want.  They use their power to silence those who do not agree with them.  Is this democracy?  Is this the kind of leadership we want in government?

Virginia Governor McDonnell Blinks on Ultrasound Bill

According to a Washington Post story, some Virginia legislators had no idea how invasive an ultrasound can be.  REALLY????  They didn't even think to Google it?

Some Virginia Republicans are demanding pregnant women seeking an abortion go through a medical procedure that they know nothing about.  They want government to dictate what doctors should do, but are ignorant of medical procedures and have complete disregard for the patients, who, by the way, are all women.

Whether you believe abortion is moral or immoral, government should never be allowed to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship. Years ago, forced sterilizations were the result of government interference in the lives of men and women.  From the 1930s into the 1970s, state governments approved the sterilization of men and women legislators believed would be incompetent parents (Compulsory Sterilization).

Sterilization continued in North Carolina into the 1970s, but in every state government officials targeted not only the mentally disabled, but the poor, mainly people of color, and those the state considered "promiscuous".  This is what can happen when government demands medical procedures based on the religious, moral, or personal beliefs of those in power.

Virginia's Governor McDonnell said he would sign the bill until Democrats noted that doing an ultrasound against a woman's will is equivalent to rape with a foreign object and violates Virginia's object sexual penetration law.  While this may have caused McDonnell to blink, he needs to reassess how this bill violates the doctor-patient relationship and forces big government into the examination room. This bill is simply bad legislation.

Virginia State Lawmakers Cross the Line

The line is a line of protestors, mostly women, who strongly object to legislation that would "define embryos as humans and criminalize their destruction, require "transvaginal" ultrasounds of women seeking abortions and cutting state aid to poor women seeking abortions" (Bob Lewis, PilotOnline). Police estimated the crowd at about 1,000.

HB1, the legislation presented by state lawmakers Robert G Marshall (R-13) and Ben L Cline (R-24), would give "unborn children at every stage of development" the same rights and privileges as "other persons, citizens, and residents of the Commonwealth" (VLIF). The legislation defines life as beginning at conception, which is problematic since conception cannot be measured. According to Medline, the medical dictionary used by the National Institutes of Health, conception is "the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both" (Medline).

Most women do not know when an egg has been fertilized. It floats around in the fallopian tubes and eventually makes its way to the uterus. If the uterus is prepared, the fertilized egg may attach to the wall of the uterus, then it becomes an embryo. For various reasons, including infections, the uterus may not be prepared and the fertilized egg passes on, eventually leaving the body during the woman's regular menstrual cycle.

Was that fertilized egg a person with all the rights of a citizen? How can anyone possibly enforce such an idea?

This legislation is obviously meant to criminalize abortion. What they fail to take into consideration are religions that believe abortion is morally acceptable. A colleague from Israel informed me that Judaism teaches that life begins with the first breath -- at birth. While individuals in every religion may believe differently (for example, Catholics differ on contraceptives), Jewish law requires an abortion when the mother's life is threatened. In all other cases, abortion is considered a personal choice.

How will the Virginia legislation conflict with the religious beliefs of the state's Jewish population? What happened to the freedom to practice religion that was so important when Catholics protested Obama's health insurance program that required coverage of contraceptives? Shouldn't this also apply to Virginia state law?