There has been a lot of talk lately about the contraception mandate of the health care bill. Many people fighting about the merits of it, how to apply it and so forth. To me, it comes down to realizing that reproductive care is elective, not required medically.
I am not saying reproductive care isn’t important, but the things that this mandate wants to make free for all women aren’t necessary for the continued health of those women. So why are we thinking of taking tax payer money to fund those things? I know I have moral issues with the morning after pill. I DO NOT want my tax money, even one cent of it, to fund a “cure” for what I consider careless behavior (outside of rape and incest of course!). You aren’t ready to handle being a mom? Great, get birth control that you know how to use properly and use it properly. Or, don’t have sex… there’s your FREE option!
Right now, female employees DO HAVE ACCESS to these services! Yes, they need to pay a co-pay first, but we all need to do that for any kind of care. Co-pays are generally around $30 per visit, then you also pay for any prescriptions you need. In this case it is birth control pills or the morning after/plan B pill. I know first hand how expensive those items can be and I would like to see costs reduced.
However, to say that this particular area of health care needs to be free is ludicrous at best. When my husband and I decided to not have any more kids, he went and got a vasectomy. THAT was not free at all, but we accepted that in order for us to severely minimize the risk of another pregnancy, and this was the best step we could take.
Out of pockets expenses are just that. You choose to do something that is not medically necessary and insurance doesn’t cover it. There are few cases where birth control pills are medically necessary, and those tend to be more for the comfort of the woman during her cycle. I can think of no medical necessity for the plan B pill. You don’t even KNOW if you are pregnant, so there can be no complications as of yet from a pregnancy.
This mandate is an over reach of our government into our lives. A woman’s reproductive care is between her and her doctor. If she is serious about not getting pregnant before she gets married, then she will find a way to afford it. A year’s worth of the pill costs about $400. That’s about $33 a month. I can think of three things I can cut out of my budget each month to cover that amount. But then again, I assume responsibility for my actions.
Every choice has a consequence. My story about the vasectomy? Yeah, we procrastinated, so instead of two kids we have three. Four days after our youngest was born was when it finally got done. We made a choice to delay and it had a pretty expensive consequence. Not once, in all the drama of having a 3rd child, did I think about how the government should have made birth control free so I wouldn’t have had another child.
I will end with this thought for those out there that have decided that making someone pay for their care is equal to denying them that care: It’s not about denying access to reproductive care. It’s about not giving “FREE” reproductive care others have to pay for regardless of their personal beliefs.
So, if I have to pay for their birth control, when do I have to start paying for someone to call the women every day to remind them to take it at the same time everyday?
Angela,
That is an excellent point! This may be provided, but who says the woman receiving it will use it properly…..That would be a poor use of resources in my world.
I find it interesting that is Senator Hornblower suggests a bill that has anything remotely to do with abortion the Left screams that it’s “a slippery slope”. And yet they are quite comfortable with forcing people to pay for other people’s irresponsibility, slippery slope be damned.
Just want to note here when you say the following that you are in fact missing part of the picture:
“I am not saying reproductive care isn’t important, but the things that this mandate wants to make free for all women aren’t necessary for the continued health of those women. So why are we thinking of taking tax payer money to fund those things? I know I have moral issues with the morning after pill. I DO NOT want my tax money, even one cent of it, to fund a “cure” for what I consider careless behavior (outside of rape and incest of course!). You aren’t ready to handle being a mom? Great, get birth control that you know how to use properly and use it properly. Or, don’t have sex… there’s your FREE option!”‘
Actually…many women such as myself take the pill for the purpose of regulating painful & irregular periods. I do this not because I am sexually active, but because I have never born a child and have not had a break in my menstrual cycle since I was 13. I’m 36 now. I expect I will (like many women) continue to have a period for at least another 10 years.
While I’m sure you don’t want to hear about the woe’s of my personal female troubles, I assure you that even though I take the pill, the reason I began taking it was to regulate a biological cycle that was causing me chronic pain and discomfort. Let’s take the idea of intercourse out of the picture for a moment. Consider this: It is hard without a pharmaceutical solution to coax a period that just won’t show up, or shows up but stays too long to “act right.”
Whether or not I am having sex is not your business, the churches business, or my employer’s business.
In that same argument, who are you to dictate what the church should or shouldn’t do then? They don’t’ believe in birth control and whether or not you use the pill for stopping the baby making process or regulating your body is moot. Forcing them into offering it is still against the law.
If the church wants to not offer birth control that’s their business, not yours. You can still get it elsewhere. The pill that would come from the church isn’t blessed or anything. It would have had the same effect as the pill from any other place you get it.
I’m not dictating. If you read my message carefully (which I’m guessing you didn’t) you’d see I’m pointing out information that was missing from the writer’s viewpoint. He’s stating that birth control is strictly elective medication, which is not reflective of the facts in the medical industry.
The church seems bent on portraying the pill as anathema because of the potential to prevent birth. There is a conflict here, when the church is insisting they don’t have to pay for something because they find it offensive, and I am pointing out that the thing they find offensive has more sides to it than they are admitting, or perhaps than they are aware.
It’s hard to find educated people about this subject, but you seem like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks