Sunday, March 18, 2012

Birth Control Controversy

P and I were discussing the new issue surrounding birth control that has come up in this country lately.  I am not up to speed 100% so please forgive me for any inaccuracies that I may state.

My original stance was screw that, insurance should HAVE to pay for birth control.  Its the woman's right to use it, why deny that right blah blah blah.

But P brought up a good point.  Its not health related.  Its to prevent pregnancy which is not a health threat.  However, birth control CAN be used for health reasons and to protect from a health threat if pregnancy would be detrimental to that woman's health.  And in that case, yes it should be paid for.  Let's take this further, why not have insurance companies pay for condoms as well?  Condoms prevent STD's and pregnancy which are two "large ticket" items.

Furthermore, insurance companies pay for the most ridiculous things these days like medicine for thicker eye lashes.  If those kind of drugs can be paid for, which are not health related, then why shouldn't birth control be paid for?  Some insurance companies even pay for cosmetic surgery (not due to loss of say breasts with cancer but for purely cosmetic reasons) and yet people want to stop birth control from being paid for.

In response to the whole Catholic institutions refusing to have insurance pay for birth control, I think it is crazy.  I can see both sides though.  They are against birth control and therefore should not have to pay for something that is against their beliefs.  However, their employees should not have to "suffer" due to their employers beliefs.  Whether it is working for a Catholic school or a Catholic boss.  Yes the Catholic institution is paying for the insurance premiums, but the insurance company is paying for the drugs.  And what about those companies who have their employees contribute to their premiums?  Can we deny them access?  No.

Its a very hot ticket topic right now and there are people on both sides of the fence who are vehemently passionate about their case.   Personally I think we need to worry about other hot topics like say getting people off of unemployment and getting jobs back into the country instead of worrying about paying for birth control.  But hey, cosmetic issues are always more important in this country than the real issues.


  1. Until and unless insurance ceases to cover viagra, etc for ED, and puts men through the same mortal hell to confirm its medical necessity for pulmonary hypertension that women would/do go through under this law getting BC covered for health reasons, the whole "it's not a matter of healthcare" argument doesn't really wash for me.

    BTW, I'm not talking about Peter, he seems like a decent, well-reasoned human being, and it's absolutely a valid point, so long as it's applied evenly to both sexes.

    But the Limbaughs/Santorums/etc's of the world who cry SLUT over a woman's use of BC (while frequently lambasting women who fail to use it and have "kids they can't afford") - but seem completely unphased by the coverage of a drug used primarily to simply help men have more and better sex (with no risk of childbearing otherwise, and frequently tied to an increased risk of STDs)... aggh! I can't take the glaring inconsistencies! hahaha.

    I actually would be perfectly OK with NEITHER birth control OR viagra and friends being covered; as far as the medical necessity goes, there are many other drugs/drug combinations that are not teeny little pills in a cute little Mayan calendar package that are designed to treat the same issues, are almost always covered by insurance, and frequently can be used/combined to use as birth control, anyway.

    I just think either way, both sexes should be treated with an even hand.

    1. Agree completely, and that is P's and my argument. It isn't a healthcare product but they have so many other non-healthcare products out there they can't just pick this one to stop covering. They need to either cover them all or cover none.