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?

Catholics and Contraceptives

To recap the War on Contraceptives (also the War on Women's Rights):

In President Obama's healthcare plan, all health insurance companies would be required to provide coverage of contraceptives. The Institute of Medicine recommended that contraceptives be available free of charge to women as part of preventative health care services. Some religious leaders objected to this requirement on moral grounds. And, as expected, some members of the GOP hijacked the discussion, making it an election year issue.

So Obama made a compromise and said organizations affiliated with religious institutions (like Catholic universities) would not be required to pay for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, but employees would be notified that they were still eligible for free contraceptives. Catholics and others who object to contraceptives on moral/religious grounds do not have to pay for the service with health insurance companies.

Unfortunately, the momentum of this chaotic side show was unstoppable. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) convened a committee to hear testimony on how the availability of contraceptives to women was unconstitutional, immoral, and against the freedom to practice religion. Oddly enough, all of the "expert" witnesses were men, which begs the question as to when they were forced to take or pay for contraceptives against their religious/moral/legal rights. Exactly what experience did they have with contraceptives that made them experts?

Fortunately, women on the committee spoke out, questioning the absence of women from the discussion. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) took Mr. Issa to task for the absence of women on the panel and then walked out of the hearing. (Here is Rep. Maloney's statement and here is the video of Rep. Norton during the committee meeting.)

There is a small piece of history that we need to remember: In 1968, the Conference of Catholic Bishops in the United States voted 180 to 8 that Catholic married couples could use contraceptives and still be an active member of the Catholic church (Daytona Beach Morning Journal, Nov. 16, 1968).

This is not a new problem. Liberal Catholic priests in the US have consistently challenged Rome on moral issues, and the issue of contraceptives is an old issue. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, most Catholics disagree with conservative church leaders on whether contraceptives violate religious principles.

Researchers found that 41% of Catholics believed contraceptives were morally acceptable and 36% said contraceptives were not a moral issue. Only 15% of Catholics polled said contraceptives were morally wrong. Of all people polled, only 8% said contraceptives were morally wrong.

If this is not an issue for Catholics (men and women), why is it an issue for the Catholic hierarchy (all men)? (Did I just answer my own question?) And what made the GOP think joining forces with a group so out of touch with its own membership could possibly help them?