Home > contraception, Health Care, Issues Etc. > Mandatory contraception coverage

Mandatory contraception coverage

August 3rd, 2011

I did my issues etc radio show on this today, and we talked about it on my Monday night Catholic Radio of San Diego program: “Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday.”

Later in the article, we learn:

a government study last summer found that birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, according to a government study issued last summer. More than 90 million prescriptions for contraceptives were dispensed in 2009, according the market analysis firm INS health. Generic versions of the pill are available for as little as $9 a month. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Many are among women using some form of contraception, and forgetting to take the pill is a major reason.

This new rule mandating insurance coverage of contraception with no co-pay is evidence of the condom-ist ideology, rather than a serious attempt to solve any serious problem.  This culture is already saturated with low cost contraceptives. Cheaper pills will not make women stop “forgetting” to take their pills.

Many “unplanned” pregnancies are coming about for some reason other than lack of access to contraception, like the women want their babies.  The concept of “unplanned”pregnancy is meaningless.

Print Friendly
Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: contraception, Health Care, Issues Etc. Tags:
  1. nerdygirl
    August 3rd, 2011 at 18:53 | #1

    IUD’s are covered. As effective as pills when taken properly without having to remember to do something everyday. IUD’s have a high-upfront cost, so to many women, they are not an option. More women using IUD’s would probably lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies.

  2. August 4th, 2011 at 09:03 | #2

    Still, if women do not want to get pregnant then they shouldn’t have sex, because any contraception method can fail. Nevertheless, insurance should NOT pay for contraceptives because it is a choice, not a medical condition, and it raises the cost for the rest of us.

  3. Diogenes
    August 4th, 2011 at 11:00 | #3

    More women not having sex outside of marriage would certainly lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies. And NFP is free. Why not have insurance companies cover that? Since health insurance is now going to cover ordinary, routine expenses like contraceptives, why not have it cover healthy foods as well. At least eating healthy foods make people healthier, whereas the pill is most often used to cause an otherwise healthy body to malfunction.

  4. Deb
    August 4th, 2011 at 12:12 | #4

    IUD’ side effects: Mood changes, Acne, Headaches, Breast tenderness, Pelvic pain, Cramping (copper IUD), Increased bleeding during menstruation (copper IUD), Nausea

    Mirena (hormonal IUD) COMMON side effects:

    acne; back pain; breast pain or tenderness; changes in menstrual bleeding (eg, spotting); changes in sex drive; dizziness, lightheadedness, bleeding, or cramping during placement; headache; nausea; vomiting; weight gain.

    Mirena SEVERE side effects: Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); breast lumps; changes in vision; chills; fever; genital sores; mental or mood changes (eg, depression); missed menstrual period; numbness of an arm or leg; painful sexual intercourse; prolonged heavy menstrual bleeding; severe pain or tenderness in the abdomen or pelvis; sharp or crushing chest pain; sudden leg pain; sudden, severe headache, vomiting, dizziness, or fainting; sudden shortness of breath; unusual or odorous vaginal discharge; unusual vaginal swelling or bleeding; yellowing of the skin or eyes.

    So after we promote these *wonderful* IUDs, should other’s tax dollars be required to cover the common side-effects when choosing the IUD was optional in the first place?

  5. nerdygirl
    August 4th, 2011 at 20:14 | #5

    @Glenn E. Chatfield

    So do unwanted children.

    @Deb

    Those severe side effects occur in less then 5% of women who use Mierna. I think, we should be able to trust women to cover the risks of any particular contraceptive with their doctor. However, the problem posed in this post was women forget to take birth control pills. I pointed out that there are other forms of contraceptive that can’t be forgotten. In fact, I think forgetting to put your IUD in is probably a lame mutant power.

    Also, what do you mean? None of these side-effects you list require excessive treatment. Get an IUD, have a side effect after insertion, get IUD removed earlier then planned.

  6. August 5th, 2011 at 09:03 | #6

    @nerdygirl Unwanted children may cause more expense, but that is after irresponsible behavior. You miss the point – be responsible with sex and don’t cost other people with your irresponsibility. The entitlement mentality is rife.

  7. Deb
    August 5th, 2011 at 10:47 | #7

    @Deb
    Those severe side effects occur in less then 5% of women who use Mierna. I think, we should be able to trust women to cover the risks of any particular contraceptive with their doctor. However, the problem posed in this post was women forget to take birth control pills. I pointed out that there are other forms of contraceptive that can’t be forgotten. In fact, I think forgetting to put your IUD in is probably a lame mutant power.
    Also, what do you mean? None of these side-effects you list require excessive treatment. Get an IUD, have a side effect after insertion, get IUD removed earlier then planned.

    What about the common side effects? Let’s take weight gain, for example. What if the women develops weight related health issues from a 20 lb (from what I read this is not an uncommon amount) gain? What if this weight gain leads to type 2 diabetes? Do we cover that, too, even if choosing Mirena was optional? Do we cover the surgery required for when the IUD embeds itself in the uterus?

    Also, only women who have already had children can use Mirena… so a lot of the “forget a pill” ladies can’t use it.

    Glenn has it right. If you do not want a “surprise” pregnancy then don’t have sex. I personally dislike saying that unplanned pregnancies cost more money. If we are unwilling to spend health care money on children and see preventing said children as a cost-cutting measure, we are headed for our own destruction.

  8. nerdygirl
    August 5th, 2011 at 20:56 | #8

    @Deb
    Uh, would insurance cover type 2 diabetes if the women just ate unhealthily? Or if another optional medication caused it? Is a woman who hypothetically gets type 2 diabetes after weight gain from a contraceptive less deserving of treatment than a woman who gets it from any other cause? Because thats what you are insinuating, that women who choose contraception do not deserve medical treatment.

    I was under the impression that it was recommended for women who’ve already had children because it was a long-term birth control, not that women without children couldn’t use it. I could be wrong though. Of course, there’s also shots for women who can’t take the pill daily.

    “. If you do not want a “surprise” pregnancy then don’t have sex. ”
    Isn’t that like saying if you don’t want a head injury don’t ride a bike? I mean, if you wreck it you could seriously hurt your head. But if you use protection responsibly (in this case, a helmet) it becomes a reasonable risk. Not all people will consider that risk level acceptable, but the majority probably will. And isn’t it better to have more people riding bikes with helmets, then fewer people riding bikes, but doing it without helmets?

  9. Anne
    August 6th, 2011 at 04:40 | #9

    @nerdygirl
    ““. If you do not want a “surprise” pregnancy then don’t have sex. ”
    Isn’t that like saying if you don’t want a head injury don’t ride a bike?”

    No nerdygirl, they’re not the same thing. Sex (the marital embrace) is designed to result in pregnanacy. Bikes are not designed to result in head injuries.

    Pregnancy is inherent in the purpose of the marrital embrace. It’s not a side affect. We need to consider that. That is why sexual actvity is intended to be limited to marriage. It’s not a recreational activity. It’s a beautiful communion which ultimately results in new life. Human life, dependent on their parents. Marriage, parenthood, sex, children: they’re not all random individual thoughts. It’s one big picture. It gets destroyed when you cut it into pieces.

    Also, children are not the equivalent of head injuries.

  10. Deb
    August 6th, 2011 at 12:09 | #10

    @nerdygirl

    “Isn’t that like saying if you don’t want a head injury don’t ride a bike?”

    Yes. Also like saying if you don’t want to be in a car wreck, then don’t drive or ride in a car. If you don’t want dog hair in your house, don’t own a dog. If you don’t want to get fat, don’t eat too much food. I could go on and on. If you cannot handle the responsibility of a child, then don’t participate in the act that produces a child. Unlike driving or riding in a car, most people don’t HAVE to have sex everyday. Instead they can wait to have it when they can handle a child. It is a way to control risks- like not riding the bike on the interstate or not driving the car intoxicated, or not allowing the dog on the couch.

  11. Deb
    August 6th, 2011 at 18:17 | #11

    Anne :
    Also, children are not the equivalent of head injuries.

    Thank you for writing this. My post fails to mention that children are a blessing and a gift, unlike a head injury.

  12. nerdygirl
    August 6th, 2011 at 19:13 | #12

    @Deb
    Ah, but think of all the marriages that would suffer if people who weren’t ready to have kids stopped having sex. Because, married people use contraceptives too, a ring on ones finger doesn’t mean they are any more prepared or able to handle kids then the average single adult.

    @Anne
    What with all the prostitutes and concubines of the bible, it seems the average biblical man didn’t limit sex to just their wife(ves). The family and marriage have undergone a lot of changes since then. It doesn’t make it a bad model for life, but it doesn’t mean other models are less valid.

  13. Anne
    August 7th, 2011 at 05:27 | #13

    @nerdygirl
    I didn’t mention the Bible. I mentioned the natural family. (As in science which you referred to on another thread but don’t seem to acknowledge here.) Your arguments are beginning to sound a lot like Sean’s. They define marriage by what is wrong with it as opposed to what it truly should be.

    “…..it doesn’t mean other models are less valid.”

    Yes it does. Homosexual family is purely artificial.

  14. Anne
    August 7th, 2011 at 05:51 | #14

    @nerdygirl
    “Because, married people use contraceptives too, a ring on ones finger doesn’t mean they are any more prepared or able to handle kids then the average single adult.”

    Then they aren’t ready for marriage. The fact that our society has dismissed the purpose of marriage doesn’t mean the purpose of marriage has changed.

  15. August 7th, 2011 at 06:01 | #15

    @nerdygirl The point is that if one wants contraception, they should pay for it themselves or else abstain from sex; you know, accept responsibility for your own actions and not make others pay for it.

    The “average biblical man” is just as sinful as the average modern man. That doesn’t change what God designed marriage for. Marriage has NOT undergone a change to the fundamental purpose of uniting one man and one woman.

  16. Deb
    August 7th, 2011 at 14:17 | #16

    nerdygirl :
    @Deb
    a ring on ones finger doesn’t mean they are any more prepared or able to handle kids then the average single adult.

    If they are not more prepared then single people to have children, then maybe they shouldn’t have gotten married. Also, there is NFP for married couples who do not feel called to another child at a particular time. It has no side-effects and many couples report better marriage through communication with its use. It does require a man to be a man, though, so in our culture it might be hard for those kidults who masquerade as men (and women).

    nerdygirl :
    @Deb
    Ah, but think of all the marriages that would suffer if people who weren’t ready to have kids stopped having sex. Because, married people use contraceptives too, a ring on ones finger doesn’t mean they are any more prepared or able to handle kids then the average single adult.
    @Anne
    What with all the prostitutes and concubines of the bible, it seems the average biblical man didn’t limit sex to just their wife(ves). The family and marriage have undergone a lot of changes since then. It doesn’t make it a bad model for life, but it doesn’t mean other models are less valid.

    Um, Our Lord Jesus spoke specifically about how he came to change marriage for good. No more concubines, divorce, or multiple wives. St. Paul reiterates this fact. Through the Sacrament of marriage, Jesus gives us the graces to live out marriage as he commanded it. So yes, Jesus’ model of marriage is better and more valid, because it came from Him.

  17. nerdygirl
    August 8th, 2011 at 19:11 | #17

    @Anne
    Oh please. Depending on what branch of science you’re looking at the “natural family” goes form a traditional nuclear family to all sorts of polygamous groupings and offspring. In fact, the “natural” nuclear family is an extremely recent development, as most cultures have large extended families all living in one house.

    Love isn’t artificial.

    “Then they aren’t ready for marriage. The fact that our society has dismissed the purpose of marriage doesn’t mean the purpose of marriage has changed.”

    So, people marrying their life partners and trying to get finances, jobs or buy a home before they start having children are doing it wrong? People who marry and can’t carry a pregnancy to term due to long term prescription meds are doing it wrong?

    Anne, you’re definition of marriage is increasingly limited. If people had to do marriage they way you want it defined, most people wouldn’t get married. Or more accurately, they’d still get married, and just do their own thing.

  18. Anne
    August 8th, 2011 at 21:09 | #18

    @nerdygirl
    “Anne, you’re definition of marriage is increasingly limited. If people had to do marriage they way you want it defined, most people wouldn’t get married. Or more accurately, they’d still get married, and just do their own thing.”

    Your probably right nerdygirl. My perspective is definitely limited. My marriage and my family are my life. I consider my marriage to be the greatest gift I could ever have imagined. It is an awesome responsibility and an unimaginable joy. But then, I have only been doing it for 23 years and raised just 7 children. I hope one day to be able to conceive the fullness of wisdom that you and Emma and Heidi currently enjoy with regard to marriage and family.

    BTW, from my “increasingly limited definition of marriage”, polygamy and large extended family aren’t science. They are culture and society. Science is male and female genders producing dependent offspring. That is the science of the natural law of family.

  19. August 9th, 2011 at 08:55 | #19

    @nerdygirl I agree with Anne. I have been married 35 years but was blessed with only 2 children. The definition of marriage has nothing to do with science, but God defined it at the beginning. One man, one woman united as one. Anything else is wrong. Contraception within marriage, if desired, is still the responsibility of the couple and not the responsibility of insurance companies to pass along in higher premiums to the rest of us.

Comments are closed.