The Obama administration recently announced a requirement for all health insurers to cover the costs of birth control with no co-pays. Unsurprisingly, this elicited a range of enraged responses — the most extreme of which came from Rep. Steve King (R–Iowa) who exclaimed that “preventing babies from being born is not medicine … that’s not constructive to our culture and our civilization. If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.”
The problem with far-flung conclusions like King’s is not only that they are founded on flawed logic and assumptions, but also that they detract attention from the real point: These new provisions are a big step in the right direction for our health care system.
To understand why free birth control is a good thing, it is first necessary to correctly understand what birth control does. It is preventative medicine — but unlike King’s suggestion — it is not intended to prevent new generations from being born. Instead, it prevents unplanned pregnancies, giving women the power to plan their families. It is as much an empowering tool as it is a preventative measure.
In aiding women in planning families, these new provisions will also help prevent women from turning to other more controversial family planning measures, namely abortion. People who don’t want babies often don’t have them, birth control or not. The simple conclusion, then, is that with greater access to birth control, women will have fewer unwanted pregnancies, which will in turn lower abortion rates. Thus, the birth control initiative is only a cheaper and healthier means to a similar end, which is surely a win-win situation, even for members of the pro-life camp.
But these recent provisions are not meaningful only because of the obvious benefits of birth control, but also because they’re paving the path to equality.
Perhaps the most significant consequence of the new provisions is that they will result in more socioeconomic equality in access to this fundamental health care benefit. Currently, buying birth control is expensive. It is not a one-time investment but often a recurring cost that women face. And to some, it’s an expense that they cannot cover, so they choose to forego additional payments, and with them, they forego precaution as well. Poverty should not be a barrier to equal access to essential health care services.
It is also worth noting that arguments about birth control often turn to moral reasoning, often asking: Is birth control a right? If not, how could our government possibly encourage all insurers to cover it? While a debate on the morality of birth control is interesting, it is not relevant here. The fact is that a majority of American women use birth control. So the relevant question is: Should the government be helping women with access to something they need and use?
The unequivocal answer is yes. It is evident that access to birth control is good for women. It is also evident that equality of access across socioeconomic groups to this measure is not only good but also a necessity.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
The fact is that a woman's body is her own body-not the government's, not any man's, but her own. She should be free to choose whether she wants to take birth control or not. It is ultimately the woman's choice, and offering free birth control is a great way to keep that choice available.
Why are all these MEN pontificating on this subject? When men can get pregnant they can have something to say about this.
1 Replies
"Is birth control a right? If not, how could our government possibly encourage all insurers to cover it?"
The fact that the government says something is a right doesn't really make it one. Certainly it is a legal right at that point, but rights are generally understood as a system of guarantees that everyone can enjoy simultaneously. If birth control is a right, the government must use taxpayer money to secure the pill for those who are unable to secure it themselves. Some taxpayers will not favor this use of their money, but will still need to pay taxes. Since money is property, and liberty is deciding what to do with your property, ensuring this "right" erodes others' rights to liberty and property. The pill can't be a right.
Republicans can't have it both ways. They can't fight abortion, but deny all women equal access to contraception. Abstinence is unrealistic. Republican leaders need to step out from behind their religious morals and begin to see that fighting contraception is only going to raise abortion rates.
1 Replies
I agree with you assertion that this act will bring more rights to women. Might I add that I believe that birth control would be best beneficial as a OTC drug. A Op Ed piece as done and found in a study that some women are more likely to take the Pill when purchased OTC.
Government should NOT be dictating what should be covered in my health insurance policy. If I desire to buy a policy WITHOUT coverage for the Pill and a private businesses wishes to sell me that policy, government should stay out of our agreement. Where's my freedom of choice?
1 Replies
Anyone who has read freakonomics would know, how crime decreased in the 90's, just because 30 odd years before, abortion was allowed. The birth control provides an easier way out. Why stop it?
1 Replies
Jason, but do you have any problem with "donating" to a hugely expensive, corrupt, bureaucratic, and unaccountable health care system designed to increase profits at the expense of public health? Health care ought to be by the public and for the public because the health of one effects the health of all. We wouldn't need to be having this conversation if the United States would be so civil as to join the rest of the developed world and adopt a universal health care system.
4 Replies
If birth control pills are so obviously valuable for all women, then why should the government subsidize (or force insurers to increase premiums for) the pill for all women, even those who could easily pay the full cost of this medication? Giving free birth control to low-income women sounds like something Planned Parenthood should do, not the government. If you want this to happen, you're free to donate to them or likeminded groups--don't force everyone else to "donate" through taxation.
4 Replies
I agree that the new measure is a big and essential step forward that empowers women to make choices without poverty playing into the equation. Condoms are available for free as a means of birth control as well as health protection - I wonder if King has the same response to the use of condoms?
I would love to see this initiative paired with a serious conversation about health and sex ed in schools; access is wonderful, but proper use can't be taken for granted either.
GOPers like King are pro-life when it comes to gestation. After that, you can fuggedaboutit! Having babies just because is irresponsible. Sure, we can have a population as large as we want, but GOP policies will condemn newborns to poverty. How about being pro-life for the entire life of the child?
Spot on - I 100% agree, like most people here! What is alarming is, Mr King can't be alone in his opinions, since people have voted him in - that comment's very extreme but still, at least a significant minority of public opinion must be aligned with him in some way - is this maybe the real problem?
I couldn't agree more with your focus on the human right to health care across socio-economic class and, specifically here, on women's right to sexual health care. It seems that so often the rights of women get overlooked in this debate. Oh and, Steve King - what the hell?!
Thank you Masuma for this piece, and thank you for framing this in terms of equality! The greatest issue I have with this move as a feminist, however, is that our health care system does not have a public option, and thus, since we are mandated to use private health insurance...
3 Replies
I like your point about birth control helping to prevent abortions. Abortion rates are similar around the world, regardless of whether abortion is legal or not. Clearly, if women want to end a pregnancy they will find a way to do so, so why not, as you say, give them more power in the first place?
I think this is fantastic news for all women, and people like Steve King should see the common sense benefits of giving equal access to birth control which include less abortions and hopefully fewer episodes of Teen Mom.
Interesting. I'm curious as to what you think about the morning-after pill being included in this new policy. Or were you including the morning-after pill as part of birth control? I believe some pro-lifers would see the morning-after pill as abortion, making it not such a win-win situation.
2 Replies
Your point about birth control being directed at unwanted pregnancies is paramount. There is no public policy benefit of having more "unwanted " pregnancies because they often lead to abortions, which are more costly than birth control, or an unloved and/or homeless child.
"preventing babies from being born is not medicine.... If we let our birth rate get down below replacement rate, we’re a dying civilization.”
Wow. If Steve King is going to say something dumb like that, then I'll make an overgeneralization too: this is an example of someone not knowing anything about women and doing a poor job representing them.
7 Replies
I'm really excited, for many reasons, about this common-sense development that has somehow managed to come out of our government. Now, if only the rest of our healthcare system could follow your line of thinking: "Poverty should not be a barrier to equal access to essential health care services."