Free Birth Control Reduces Abortion Rate

[_beastie]

I'm not talking about the party platform per se. I'm talking about how high-profile republicans present their opinions on the topic. And I'm talking about the provision in the ACA that requires health insurance companies to provide free birth control and the reaction of high-profile republicans to that.

I don't want to get into a "that's not doctrine" type of conversation here.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable to assume that Romney opposes free birth control, given his past comments and actions as governor.

[_beastie]

So what was all the uproar after the Sandra Fluke incident? You know, Rush Limbaugh calling her a slut for wanting free birth control.

(sorry, posted this before seeing Bob's response, which still doesn't address the fact that the right seemed intent on portraying women who wanted their health care provider to provide free birth control as rampant sluts)

Here's how Wikipedia summarizes Sandra Fluke's arguments to the House Committee:

Fluke put forward reasons that her school, Georgetown, should be compelled to offer contraceptive drugs without co-pay, in spite of the Catholic University's moral opposition to artificial birth control.[19] She said that during the time spent as a law student, birth control could cost $3,000 or more. She also stated that 40% of Georgetown Law School's female population suffered financial hardship as a result of birth control not being covered by the student health insurance plan, and that the lack of contraception coverage in the university insurance plans would induce many low-income students to go without contraceptives. She then shared the stories of friends affected by such policies, citing a friend with polycystic ovary syndrome. Fluke said this friend needed contraceptive hormones costing over $100 per month to treat this disease, and that while PcOS was "covered by Georgetown insurance", the insurance company repeatedly denied contraceptives because they suspected the purpose of the medication was contraception.[25][26][27]

You can get 100 condoms for about $25, so if she is insisting on the "$3,000" option, I don't blame her for wanting someone else to pay for it.

But we really should get back on topic. We were discussing "free birth control", not "really expensive birth control that I make my college buy for me". If Georgetown has to start buying it's co-eds $3,000 worth of birth control so they can enjoy sex without babies or financial inconvenience, that money will have to come from somewhere. So, where?

She's obviously not talking about condoms. Condoms aren't going to address her friend's health needs. The study also specifically stated that it's certain forms of free birth control that have the most impact on the rate of abortion.

[_krose]

Here are a few excerpts from the GOP platform:

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration’s attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services

This is in direct response to the requirement for insurance plans to include birth control as a covered service without copay.

No healthcare professional or organization should ever be required to perform, provide for, withhold, or refer for a medical service against their conscience. This is especially true of the religious organizations which deliver a major portion of America’s healthcare, a service rooted in the charity of faith communities.

We support the ability of all organizations to provide, purchase, or enroll in healthcare coverage consistent with their religious, moral or ethical convictions without discrimination or penalty. We likewise support the right of parents to consent to medical treatment for their children, including mental health treatment, drug treatment, and treatment involving pregnancy, contraceptives and abortion.

We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens with abstinence education which teaches abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and sexually-transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS when transmitted sexually. It is effective, science-based, and empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes and avoid risks of sexual activity.

Abstinence-only sex-ed avoids discussion of birth control. (I do enjoy the assertion that "just say no" is "science based." Funny.)

We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals, counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception.

No birth control - or even counseling about it - in schools.

[_krose]

But we really should get back on topic. We were discussing "free birth control", not "really expensive birth control that I make my college buy for me". If Georgetown has to start buying it's co-eds $3,000 worth of birth control so they can enjoy sex without babies or financial inconvenience, that money will have to come from somewhere. So, where?

Two things:

1. Of course you realize that the retail cost of a medication is not anywhere near what it costs an insurance company. Right?

2. The university would not be buying birth control, it would be buying insurance coverage that covers birth control as a preventive measure. Sort of like how IBM didn't buy my daughter's expensive seizure medication; they paid for a portion of the insurance policy that covered those drugs (so she could enjoy walking without broken bones or the financial inconvenience of ER bills).


But to really get back on topic, if a society is truly committed to reducing unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions (as we should be), it should be anxious to subsidize the measures that have been shown to be most effective at doing that. And those are comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, both of which Republicans have strongly resisted as assaults on "family values."

[_subgenius]

But to really get back on topic, if a society is truly committed to reducing unwanted pregnancies, and therefore abortions (as we should be), it should be anxious to subsidize the measures that have been shown to be most effective at doing that. And those are comprehensive sex education and easy access to contraceptives, both of which Republicans have strongly resisted as assaults on "family values."

1. Policies, like free birth control, that encourage promiscuity will likely negate any gains on unwanted pregnancies. Free bullets will not decrease shootings.
2. The health benefits for female birth control pills are largely ignored, the framing of the argument around pregnancy is a mistake.
3. What possible reasoning would make free birth control a priority over free water?
4. There is no social virtue in free birth control.
5. As with the spread of STDs, the only way to be committed to reducing unwanted pregnancy is through abstinence. Beyond that one must assume that sexual activity is recreational and a matter of personal choice - which should not be a forced subsidy upon those choosing otherwise.
6. And while i agree with Rush's characterization of that woman, i do not agree that "slut" should be used lightly in our society, as it may discourage that behavior.

[_ajax18]

So why do you conservatives think that the republican party opposes free birth control?

You've got me beat on that argument. My first inclination is to blame religious fanatics who think birth control by itself is a sin, even if it avoids what I believe to be a bigger sin which is bringing a child into this world when you're not willing/able to care for it properly. But from my own anectdotal experience I see most religious people becoming more accepting of birth control. I mean Mormons, most Protestants, and even Catholics albeit informally. Would it be fair to say that we've all seen a shift in Mormonism's stance on birth control even in our own lifetimes? Usually a change in a religions stance like that just means they stop preaching against it so forcefully or quit talking about it.

I don't know. Perhaps I'm with the Democrats on that one. I guess you can't agree with everything your party puts out when you only have two to choose from.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I'm not getting into an "it's not doctrine" debate (a low blow indeed ). What I am saying is that this issue is way overblown. It is not a priority of the Republican party to restrict access to contraception, unless you're talking about Rick Santorum.

As for Romney's off-the-cuff remark, do we think the federal government should provide contraception free of charge to everyone? I would think not. In 2011 75% of pubic expenditures for contraception came from Medicaid (some $1.78 billion). 10% (or $237 million) came from Title X, which subsidizes family-planning organizations such as Planned Parenthood. Another 3% ($71 million) came from federal block grants. The remainder came from state and local expenditures.

The GOP Congress tried to eliminate Title X expenditures, which essentially would have amounted to an 11% cut in contraception funding by the federal government. My guess is that Planned Parenthood is enough of a bogeyman to the religious right that it was politically easier for them to make cuts by taking away their federal subsidies. It didn't pass, anyway. But this is what is meant when the GOP is accused of wanting to eliminate "free" contraception.

And as I explained earlier, the kerfuffle over Sandra Fluke was based on a bureaucrat misapplying Georgetown's insurance policy. A lesbian student had been prescribed the pill for a medical reason; an insurance adjuster mistakenly denied coverage based on Georgetown's policy of not providing contraception as part of its student insurance program. The Obama administration changed federal rules that had previously granted a waiver for religious institutions in applying federal law. In this case, the administration's policy mandated that insurers provide contraception as part of their benefits; the change in rules meant that there was no longer a waiver for religious institutions. This is what the uproar on the right was about and why they keep talking about a "war on religion" (hyperbole if ever there were any).

Here are a couple of decent overviews of the issues:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories ... le-10.aspx

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr ... _serv.html

And here is the essence of religious organizations' objections:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 40400.html

[_cinepro]

She's obviously not talking about condoms. Condoms aren't going to address her friend's health needs. The study also specifically stated that it's certain forms of free birth control that have the most impact on the rate of abortion.

As Bob Loblaw pointed out "her friend's health needs" and her inability to get the proper medication appear to have been a mistake. I wouldn't even say she was getting "birth control" because, while the pills are commonly used to prevent pregnancy, in this case they were being used for another purpose.

As for Sandra Fluke herself, I would hope that someone able to get into Georgetown Law School has enough mental acuity to ask her partner to use a condom, and enough fiscal acuity to see that she can get several month's worth of condoms (at the very least, I hope) for $25. I fail to see why it is Georgetown's problem (or their insurance provider's) if she doesn't.

This is also an excellent opportunity for the free market to solve the problem. For those students for whom college-insurance-provider-provided birth control is extremely important, colleges could advertise the fact in an effort to provide such a benefit. Then colleges like Georgetown would lose out on having students like Sandra Fluke on their campus.

[_krose]

As for Sandra Fluke herself, I would hope that someone able to get into Georgetown Law School has enough mental acuity to ask her partner to use a condom, and enough fiscal acuity to see that she can get several month's worth of condoms (at the very least, I hope) for $25. I fail to see why it is Georgetown's problem (or their insurance provider's) if she doesn't.

Why do you wonder about this young lady's personal sexual practices in a Limbaugh-like way? Did she ever discuss her own desire or need for birth control? If she did I don't recall it.

I do think it's a smart financial move for insurance companies to cover contraceptives, just as with other preventive care, because it's a lot cheaper than the cost of pregnancy and childbirth.

The Utah legislature was voting on a bill to require coverage of birth control back in 2001. I don't recall whether it passed, but I remember it was based on gender fairness, due to coverage of Viagra.

[_beastie]

two quick comments

Those of you who keep referring to condoms need to actually read the study I referenced and linked. (hint: it's not condoms that show this dramatic effect)

Those of you who keep insisting that Limbaugh's statements were an aberration, keep in mind that Romney's response to Limbaugh's comments were simply: "I'll just say this, which is, it's not the language I would have used."

Perhaps, as I believe John Stewart said, he would have said "harlot" instead of slut.

More to the point of my OP: Health insurance companies, per ACA, are now required to provide free birth control. Republicans are determined to repeal ACA. Prior to ACA, it was up to insurance companies in regards to how to cover birth control. Heck, when I was first married, my health insurance didn't cover birth control AT ALL. I had to pay ALL of the cost. I would imagine most insurance companies pay some amount towards birth control, but certainly they weren't, under the free market rein, choosing to provide free birth control, were they?

To me, this question has to do with whether or not people really believe abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, plain and simple, then I would think that the TOP priority would be reducing the abortion rate at all costs.

And frankly, while this is a side argument that has been resolved already, I wonder why the catholic church doesn't clue in to this, anyway. Is protecting all those sacred sperm really as important as preventing abortion/murder? How about some perspective here. Of course, if even Mother Teresa, working with starving, destitute children, couldn't see that birth control might be the lesser of two evils, perspective is too much to ask.