No one is forcing anyone to fund birth control. Your health insurance is part of your wages for the work you have done for your employer (as long as the two things are linked). Why do you think your employer has the right to determine what you do with your wages? Can they tell you not to spend it on alcohol? Or pork? Or meat on a Friday?

That is just what I was thinking. If you pay for birth control out of your paycheck instead of insurace, isn't your employer still "paying" for the birth control?

Good point, Charles.

Also, birth control isn't used just for preventing conception. At least half the people I know who take hormonal contraceptives are on it for legitimate medical reasons. Turns out it has a lot of off-label uses, like preventing the growth of cysts that would otherwise require removal of one friend's ovaries. If insurance companies refused to cover it, they would be denying women an effective way to treat a wide range of conditions.

The fix (as I think Amy has written in the past), is to get employers out of the health insurance business.

They are only there because Henry Kaiser was a good guy that wanted to help his employees and recognized safer healthier employees would be more productive, and as a strange benefit of a post WWII economy.

But get rid of that as well as the nonsense separating group and individual insurance and let people decide what insurance they wish to buy on their own.

I think the fix is to put it on the shelf at CVS.

I'm of the opinion that birth control is not so expensive that you should need insurance to get access but ... in my admittedly limited experience... women just don't use it. The rates of hormonal birth control usage that I saw in my 20's was about 15%. So girls, was cost really the barrier that kept you from going on the pill? I suspect making access easier and more anonymous would do more to more to increase usage. There's a fair amount of stigma surrounding walking into a planned parenthood and some people just don't have the gumption to 'ask their doctor'.

If only condoms didn't suck, the answer would be so simple.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think it's okay and right to force Catholic employers to fund birth control.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think it's okay and right to force employers to cover the cost of having your baby.

(I'm exaggerating - but not by much. I suspect many of the people who want the right to opt out of the Pill would be howling if their employers presented them with the maternity ward bills.)

It's been a while since I used Trojans, but if memory serves a box was not 2.75. Still cheaper than the diapers.

um, correct me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but what health insurance pays for condoms? Or any other male birth control other than sterilization, and in some plans NOT that.

If I gotta pay out of pocket, why not everyone? JUST because it's a prescription for The Pill?

The question here is NOT if YOUR health insurance pays for something. That's between you and your plan. Don't like that plan? get another.

This is about The Government [cue evil organ music]coercing everyone into paying for women's birth control.

You may say it's a practical public good, I say bull. It only works if you use it everytime, ontime, and even then it has a failure rate like everything else. There are people who understand the wight of the decsion, and will use it well, and there are those that may or may not use it, and have an oopsie for various lame reasons that seem insane.

The people who would be using it properly and understand the issues, would probably PAY for their own anyway.

AND? interestingly enough, condoms work for WOMEN too. They just have to require their partner to use it, UND VIOLA! Birth control.

Cheap and efficient, and ONLY used when you get LUCKY, and NO SIDE EFFECTS! A winning combination!!!

If everyone must have the government, and by extension all taxpayers, pay for birth control, I think it should ONLY be condoms for the reason above. PLUS, you wouldn't have the hormones getting into the water supply and messing with nature.

So that's 5, five, FIVE! good reasons that taxpayers shouldn't be footing the bill for the pill. [it rhymes]

As an aside, The Pill isn't very popular in Japan http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-637523.html
and yet? A VERY low birthrate.

WHAT MAGIC IS THAT?

Also from that article, ~15% of US women use The Pill... why is it that EVERYONE should pay for them?

Amazon comes through in the clutch NikoleK $buck.48 for a 3 pack, plus volume discounts. CHEAP!

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_st?keywords=condoms&qid=1358448020&rh=n%3A3760901%2Ck%3Acondoms&sort=price

What if an employer thought anti-psychotics were not needed for schizophrenics because they just had the devil inside them and if we did an exorcism it should be "cured".

We have to look at the way health insurance is now and make laws according to it's current status. I agree it should be untied from the employer now, but that is not the case. I do not care what my employers beliefs are, what I'm a gay man who got HIV while at the job and my employers thinks I deserved AIDS for sinning against God?

They have no right to make those choices, only a DOCTOR does.

I believe we should untie health insurance from the work force. Don't think employers DO NOT USE THAT AGAINST YOU. They do, and do not like to provide raises and know you are "stuck" with them if you have a medical condition.

We have to make laws with the current status of insurance. Yes, I know the law could be better, but as of now it's not and I dont give a fuck about who believes what. I need my birth control (and I too don't take it for fornication).

I suspect many of the people who want the right to opt out of the Pill would be howling if their employers presented them with the maternity ward bills.

I suspect that you would be wrong. Unless you mean to say they're also not covering pregnancies?

Not to worry, I'm sure it won't be too long until they stop providing health coverage and force their employees into federal or state exchanges. Problem solved!

@ Purplepen "They have no right to make those choices" I disagree, they get the bill, they are involved and therefore deserve a say. You don't weant them to have a say, then seperate insurance from them. Most companies will pay you to not have insurance through them, usually comes into play because a married couple and the other spouse has better insurance.

@Charles Yes the government is forcing people to fund bc. Even if no employee wants it, and the employer doesn't want it. This is the whole Sandra Fluke argument. It must be provided.
The company has say over how much you are paid, therefore they have say over this if you see it as your wages. No one forces you to get healthcare from your employer.

To me the really hypocritical thing is many politicians who are all for pushing my body my choice are fine in removing your choice in what foods you eat, smoking, weight, etc. Especially in the workplace.

There are only 800 Planned Parenthood locations in the country, not all are easily accessible for some and then, of course, there is always the funding issue and not everyone is eligible for free or low cost birth control. It is a sliding scale based program.

Kristen...

$2.17 AT WALMART

http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=trojan&search_constraint=976760&tab_value=all&ic=32_0&search_sort=4&cat_id=976760

are you telling me there are not enough wally world locations...

or that $2.17 is too much to pay to get lucky 3 times?

I'm sure it isn't that much more at the local 7-11 either.

The cost issue is BULLSH*T

"No one forces you to get healthcare from your employer."

WRONG for many of us there is no other option. Change jobs? Ok what about in meantime? It takes months to not only change jobs but for insurance to kick in.... I need the medication I need NOW. Buy my own insurance? No insurance will cover me (trust me I've asked)..

So.....I am in a sense forced to only get insurance from my current employer. As it stands since I'm forced to cut my wages because they are paying for my insurance (they've told me, we cut your wages because we pay for your insurance) and since I'm forced under the circumstances to be with them then they have no right to tell me what I can get prescribed from my doctor.

Again, a large number of people use hormonal birth control for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy. Should insurers deny them the most effective medicine for their condition because some of us are butthurt about people getting lower-cost birth control?

If we don't want to fund people's life choices, why stop at procreation? Why should we fund cancer treatment for people who smoke or are overweight? Or medical costs for people in car accidents? It was your choice to take one of the most dangerous forms of transportation, right? Why cover physical therapy for knee problems if you jog? Why should insurance companies cover anything related to your kid? After all, the kid isn't providing any benefits to the company. In fact, he's probably the reason the new parent has to take so much time off. Screw 'em.

Untying insurance from employment is the only way to deal with this. If part of my salary is going toward health insurance, it had better cover the medicines I need it to cover.

"part of my salary is going toward health insurance, it had better cover the medicines I need it to cover."

Exactly, not only do I pay for it as well (along with my employer), but my wages are cut to compensate for the insurance.

And to kick it off, they get to choose what gets covered?

MonicaP and Purplepen have already said it better than I ever could...

I'm on BC for medical reasons that would otherwise prevent me from getting out of bed for two days out of every month. BC is the cheapest, easiest way of maintaining my problems. It is a medicine. Not just some recreational, optional drug. And my need for it equals the need of those taking drugs for arthritis, high cholesterol and mood disorders.

I'm all for separating insurance from the workplace, once and for all (like a lot of you are). But if my company wants to take money out of my paycheck to supplement the care needed for my coworker who broke his arm skateboarding, my BC should be covered, too.

What I don't understand is why anyone would think it's okay and right to force employers to cover the cost of having your baby.

---------

I concur. All employers should be able to choose whether they offer health insurance as part of compensation. Under ObamaCare, only employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees may make that choice. Employees, too, should be able to choose not to pay for insurance that pays for their coworkers' broken arms or birth control. And again, under ObamaCare, they won't have that choice.

If you think it's unfair that your employer-paid insurance covers skateboarding accidents and not birth control, or whatever, you should be free to decline that insurance and negotiate for higher pay instead---and your employer should be free to tell you to take or leave the offered compensation or negotiate as he/she sees fit.

Government screwing around in healthcare and employment is the problem, not what this or that plan covers.

OK, I'm going to smack some of you guys down. I see an awful lot of entitled thinking here from people who ought to know better. Prepare for your spankings. And I'm going to be as clever with the wording as Crid is, either.

"No one is forcing anyone to fund birth control. Your health insurance is part of your wages for the work you have done for your employer (as long as the two things are linked). "

So what if I go to my employer and say, "A bunch of us employees have no need for birth control. Why don't you offer us a plan that doesn't include it?" Their answer will be, "Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act, that's illegal. You must help subsidize it for the employees that want it." Government, at gunpoint, is forcing my employer to force me to pay for someone else's stuff. That's force.

"That is just what I was thinking. If you pay for birth control out of your paycheck instead of insurace, isn't your employer still 'paying' for the birth control?"

Jesus H. Christ on a Popsickle stick. Once the employer hands me the paycheck, it's no longer theirs; it's mine. I can decide what I want and pay for it accordingly. It's not their money; they have no say-so over how I spend it, nor do they care.

"Also, birth control isn't used just for preventing conception. At least half the people I know who take hormonal contraceptives are on it for legitimate medical reasons. "

Red herring. Every plan I've ever heard of has an exception for using birth control e.g. to treat endometriosis. A gal I dated circa 1991 was on the pill for that very reason, and her insurance paid for it.

"What if an employer thought anti-psychotics were not needed for schizophrenics because they just had the devil inside them and if we did an exorcism it should be "cured"."

Many plans have completely different handling of mental health treatments. Also this argument is a straw man. Find me a plan, anywhere, that specifically excludes anti-psychotics.

"There are only 800 Planned Parenthood locations in the country, not all are easily accessible for some and then, of course, there is always the funding issue and not everyone is eligible for free or low cost birth control. "

Pardon me for screaming here, but I'm really fed up with this special-pleading argument:

WHY THE FLYING FUCK DO WOMEN THINK THAT BIRTH CONTROL SHOULD BE FREE? WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK YOU SHOULD GET FOR FREE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE GIRLY PARTS? ARE YOU **THAT** FUCKING SPECIAL?

And guess what, sister. Insurers have this thing called the "formulary". They can and do drop things from the formulary. I'm on a maintenance medicine (yes, it happens to men too). As of January 1, until the day that I'm eligible for Medicare if and when that ever happens, I will be paying $3000 a year, plus inflation, out of my pocket for it. That's because my company's brand-spanking-new and more expensive Obamacare-compliant policy will not cover it. However, it's good to know that my female co-workers, who already enjoy the advantage of having affirmative-action preference over me, will be enjoying free birth control at my cost. Because no insurance would ever dare to mark any BC pill, or any other med used primarily by women or minorities, off the formulary. They know who their masters are, and they know who are the designated scapegoats in our society today.

"If you think it's unfair that your employer-paid insurance covers skateboarding accidents and not birth control, or whatever, you should be free to decline that insurance and negotiate for higher pay instead---and your employer should be free to tell you to take or leave the offered compensation or negotiate as he/she sees fit."

Finally I get off of my high horse a bit, because Jenny nails it. No one should ever be forced, by government edict, into a one-size-fits-all insurance plan. But that's one of the main goals of Obamacare. Back in the days before employment-tied insurance, you did used to be able to negotiate stuff like this. There used to be a company where I live that offered discounted health, life, and auto insurance to anyone who would sign a pledge to never drink alcohol. Now I would not buy that insurance, but people who are willing to make the sacrifice should have that option.

What I'd like to know is:

Let's pretend the most popular form of birth control, right now, was a prescription pill for men. If that WERE the most popular method, would the average user want - or demand - that that be covered? If not, why not?

On a slightly different topic, I found this in Google News (in deadspin, whatever that is):

Q: Do you think that guys should have to pay half for their girlfriends' birth control? My girlfriend says yes; I obviously say no. Your thoughts?

A: Women usually don't go dutch on rubbers (which ain't cheap, by the way), so I say you shouldn't have to. There should be enough sharing of meals and gifts in your relationship that her birth control tab isn't a hair worth splitting. Besides, while forcing you to pay half of it is perfectly logical, it's one of those gestures that says to a man, "Oh hey, I'm having sex with you as a favor, so be happy with what you get," which is shitty.

Either way, there needs to be a male birth control pill. It's 2013. We have pills for depression, erectile dysfunction, addiction, incontinence, and a million other ailments. The male pill is long overdue. Think of the money pro athletes would save. Apart from the ones too stupid to use the pill, which would be 80 percent of them.

MonicaP, that would be WOMEN, as in "Again, a large number of WOMEN use hormonal birth control for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy."

And if how many are we talking about if only 15%-30% [depends on who you talk to] of women use The Pill at all, and the ones who use it for hormone balance are a smaller subset of that? According to Guttmacher Inst. it's roughly 14% of the larger# or 1.5 million women. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html#11

I dunno if their numbers actually add up, because they certainly slice and dice them

All that being said... if it's a drug, used specifically to treat a Medical Condition then of course, insurance should cover it... Because you can prove that you have a medical need for it. I assume they can test that, yeah?

but. Are you really sure you want to classify pregnancy as a medical condition the same as cancer?

Is that child really a tumor to be removed from your body?

The difference between breaking my leg, or getting cancer, and pregnancy is CHOICE.

You 'dun come down with a case of pregnancy unless you TRY.

If that is the case... maybe we should be examining more closely who pays and why for prevention, and for having.
Disclosure: I paid cash for the first kid, as I didn't have insurance, for the second I also paid cash, as my insurance is considered >20% of my pay, plus all the out of pocket, and deductible.

Every plan I've ever heard of has an exception for using birth control e.g. to treat endometriosis.

The problem here is in creating the incentive to lie. If I want BC for pregnancy prevention, I can shop around and find a doctor who's willing to say I have a hormonal imbalance that requires use of the medicine. That incentive screws with all reporting on the matter. And some people use it for both, so how would that work?

MonicaP, that would be WOMEN, as in "Again, a large number of WOMEN use hormonal birth control for reasons unrelated to preventing pregnancy."

Are women not people? Did I miss something?

According to Guttmacher Inst. it's roughly 14% of the larger# or 1.5 million women.

1.5 million women (who might or might not also be people) using ANY drug to treat a medical condition is significant.

Are you really sure you want to classify pregnancy as a medical condition the same as cancer?

Is that child really a tumor to be removed from your body?

Depends on who you ask. And I say that as someone who is going to give birth to a planned-for child any day now. But pregnancy is not without medical concerns of its own, so it needs to be considered on the same terms. A pregnancy can lead to significant and lifelong health issues.

The difference between breaking my leg, or getting cancer, and pregnancy is CHOICE.

Right. Choice. So if you choose to smoke or be overweight or work at a job with high exposure to toxins, insurers should refuse to cover you. How did you break your leg? Were you skiing? Why should the rest of us have to pay for your risky behavior?

The only time people really start pressing the choice button is when it comes to something that might be related to sex.

The only reason I pointed out the people angle MonicaP, is that hormonal BC only applies to women, and cannot apply to men... so it's only Female People.

as far as choice? I get a ins. deductible kickback from the company for not smoking, and also for following "Wellness Guidelines" that include eating healthy and keeping your weight down... so yeah, there are incentives.

And ultimately all of these complicated arguments are migrating throughout our medical issues, and making exception handling the rule of the day.

But just imagine how all this will be distorted when the govt. is involved with it.

Then, the group with the best lobbyists wins.

The real difference in the question is this.
Is it HealthCare or Health Insurance?

Insurance is for things that happen with a reasonable amount of uncertainty. I know many people including myself who have skiied for many years [50 in my mom's case] without injury, much less breaking a leg. It isn't a forgone conclusion to the act.

CARE is for things that are routine, and happen all the time. like a flushot.

Pregnancy is something based on THE EXPRESS INTENT OF MAKING A CHILD.

It's not accidental. It's purposeful, EVEN when you get pregnant by not taking precaution.

It isn't in the same class with falling and breaking your leg.

So we go back to Health Ins. VS. Health CARE and who PAYS for that. When you make every taxpayer in a country pay for a health system, you want to take care of Unexpected stuff.

Things that people decide for themselves to do, should be their own problem.

Also? Don't expect that eventually public health systems won't demand that you stop smoking or lose weight. They will. Nanny Bloomberg certainly will.

On another tangent, perhaps with population size crashing, maybe support to have children SHOULD be free, as a societal good. But that would be a whole 'nother thing.

I may order some condoms from Amazon.com just so I can tell everyone that the condoms came in my mail.

How quickly people lose focus

What I don't understand is why anyone would think it's okay and right to force Catholic employers to fund birth control

This was the question, not health care via employment in general, or non catholic businesses being forced to cover heath care but Catholic enterprises being forced to do so against their religious beliefs.

And my answer? Fuckem. Its a BUSINESS. Not a church. They dont want to cover BC for their nuns that fine.

They dont want to cover BC for the jew, or the lutheran or the hindu they pay a salary to to work in a non ecclesiastical position?

How is the job title of doctor, teacher, office manager, janitor, realtor, ect have jack shit to do with religion?

Would you be so sanguine about a hospital own by Christian Scientist / Jehova's Witnesses refusing to allow any blood transfusions on their property?

Why the fuck should a business that has NOTHING to do with religious services be allowed a waiver to the rules simply because they majority stock holder is a church?

Now, I agree that the 'rules' need serious revision. But I dont understand why people think anyone deserves a waiver on religious grounds for businesses that have no religious function

I laugh, looking back at how my mother, a number of times in my teen years, gingerly told me it was best not to have premarital sex. Premarital babies? Not even in the universe of possibility.

My father would've skinned me, or either of my two brothers, alive if we had gotten a girl pregnant. So that was one factor that kept me from having sex -- as in sexual intercourse -- with my first girlfriend (we were together for four years, two years of high school and two years of college.) But our attitudes did as well. I didn't want her to get pregnant and she didn't want to get pregnant (her twin sister got pregnant right around the time we started dating in the 11th grade.) As you put it, not even in the universe of possibility.

So we never fucked. Not once. In four years. But we had a lot of oral sex and did a lot of touching and, while I didn't know it then, becoming experienced at those things at a young age turned out to be a wonderful silver lining.

I don't even take BC to prevent pregnancy. I take it to regulate my bad hormone levels and prevent ovarian pain during ovulation. It's a medical necessity like the anti-psychotics I take.

Should I have to describe the reasons to my employer for any medication? I pay into it too, they get all the say and I none?

"Hey Manager no I don't take BC for fucking but because I'm taking anti psychotics that mess with my hormones"

They have no right to that info.

We all know the solution, untying healthcare from work but that is not the case RIGHT NOW. And because It's not the case RIGHT NOW and I like to live in the NOW and my employer deducts my wages and blocks the growth of my salary I get my doctor patient privacy.

"Then, the group with the best lobbyists wins."

And that's what government all comes down to now, isn't it? If you are a politically popular group and you pay off the right people, you get free stuff. If you're not or you don't, you get to pay for other people's free stuff.

I am tired and loving Monica's responses so I'm going to second all of her responses!

But just one response to:

"Kristen...

$2.17 AT WALMART"

Condoms are great if you want to get pregnant.

That's interesting Kristen, according to http://www.contracept.org/risks.php the failure rate is 8% vs 15% pill to condom... Though the condom is usually blamed on improper use... advantageously, if it breaks, you can get Plan B right away. With the pill you don't find a failure 'till you're preggers. In 33 years I havent had one break, maybe I'm just too vanilla.

I'm going to throw in an off-topic to this that does relate back:

What if they could set your premiums on religion and whether you take BC or not?

What about if they set your premiums on whether you have a firearm in the house?

Should the premium paying base be required to fund your irresponsible decision to have guns?

Something being left out in the discussion is that under Obamacare birth control is free ONLY IF it's for contraceptive purposes. If you use it for anything else it will cost you. How do I know this? Because at work when women present for their Depo-Provera shots we have to ask them if it's for contraceptive purposes. If they say it is and their medical record agrees it is free. If it's for some other purpose such as heavy, painful periods we have to charge them for it. The same applies to other methods of birth control as well. As stupid as I think it is for birth control to be free, ask yourself how it's fair that it's only the case if you want to avoid kids but not for an actual medical purpose?

Wow, @BunnyGirl, that's disturbing. I hadn't heard that---if that's the case, why were we treated to Sandra Fluke's sob story about a friend-of-a-friend-of-the-guy-who-totally-saw-Ferris-pass-out-at-thirty-one-flavors with ovarian cysts?

I don't have a problem with employers offering healthcare. However, I consider it a benefit they provide (like onsite gyms or sick leave) to entice potential hires.

If I choose to take that benefit, then I'm stuck with what they offer. I can always decline it and get what I want.

That said, if I decline, I think I should get any "company contributions" put straight back into my paycheck. When my husband and I both worked for the same employer, we could only have one health plan, so I didn't have one, but I certainly didn't get the extra benefit put back in my check!

The big problem is, in my mind, it has become standard so that it can be costly and difficult to get coverage outside of work. When it was just a nice perk the company offered, it was just that!

SwissArmyD said:

"The only reason I pointed out the people angle MonicaP, is that hormonal BC only applies to women, and cannot apply to men... so it's only Female People."

And how does a woman's using the Pill for birth control benefit the man any less than it benefits HER? Assuming he doesn't want children?

What a lot of people can't seem to grasp is that the Pill very often gets used because the MEN don't want to use condoms - AND they're in a long-term relationship.

See my previous question from January 17, 2013 2:02 PM.

"If they say it is and their medical record agrees it is free. If it's for some other purpose such as heavy, painful periods we have to charge them for it. "

Ironic laugh... so the previous, sensible policy has been totally inverted. Welcome to the miracle of Obamacare.

Totally stupid in my opinion. And as of August 1, female sterilizations are supposed to be free as well. Rumor has it that abortions are supposed to be free next year as well, but I have nothing to confirm this as true. It's basically a bunch of freebies to women, and more specifically, child-avoidant women.

Pretending that pregnancy isn't a medical issue is short-sighted. As soon as that stick turns colors, medical care becomes pervasive. I'm having a perfectly healthy pregnancy, and still, I've had more medical care than I did during the rest of my adult life. Pregnancy is so closely intertwined with health care that contraception has to be as well. This isn't just a women's issue. Fathers want healthy babies, too.

There are no certainties in health care. Chemo is often covered, but it doesn't always work. Same with birth control. The single biggest failure for any form of birth control is user error. But for people who use the pill and condoms as they are supposed to be used, they are very effective in preventing pregnancy. Many couples use both.

> Fathers want healthy babies, too.

Let them pay for them.

There is a lot of "free" being thrown about in comments here that would more precisely be stated "paid for by somebody else."

As you were, people.

They are, Crid. With their insurance premiums.

THEN LEAVE MY PREMIUMS OUT OF IT.

The health care of others, reproductive or otherwise, is not — on a decent planet — my concern. See also, the reverse.

It's basically a bunch of freebies to women, and more specifically, child-avoidant women.

Posted by: BunnyGirl at January 18, 2013 9:59 AM
__________________________________

I suppose you think it's selfish and frivolous to make a real effort to AVOID having babies you don't want?

Consider that even wanted children are easily the biggest factor in the pollution problem. Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to encourage childfree people? I have yet to hear any solid reason why the global population will drop, though many claim it will.

Shouldn't we be doing everything possible to encourage childfree people?
~lenona

The short answer is no. We shouldn't be doing everything possible to encourage childfree people, not when it involves giving them tax breaks or medical procedures or medication that has been paid for with money forcibly taken from other people.

If you meant that in a touchy-feely type of way, then yes. We should encourage people who don't want kids, or have no way of caring for children, or who will be terrible parents to NOT have kids.
There are enough kids whose parents didn't want them. There are enough kids whose parents are getting assistance from the government (i.e. taxpayers). There are enough kids being raised to be brats, with no manners, by parents who have little, if any, manners of their own.

And that applies to people who have kids, as well. There shouldn't be child tax credits, there shouldn't be such pervasive use of WIC and TANF, or other forms of welfare that are dependent on people having children that they ought not have had.
Of course we need to have the safety net for people who fall on hard times unexpectedly. But that doesn't mean that every new parent should be expected to need aid.

No, I don't think it's selfish or frivilous to prevent children you don't want. I think it's selfish to expect others to pay for your own responsibility. I belong to online parenting forums. At least half the women on there try to have children they can't afford to then go sign up for Medicaid, WIC, and food stamps to pay for them. That's bullshit!

Seriously, there is a bunch of short-sighted people here.

You want to save the 10$ a month on pill, but then you gonna have to pay the white trash lady, or any poor uneducated low class chick food stamp and other housing subsidies for 18 years at a much higher rate???????

Are you just stupid or crazy? 10$ or a 1000$ of tax-payer money, anyway? And you want to save the 10$?

If you let the poor, uneducated reproduce faster than the rest of the population, don't scream if the present or the future looks like the movie 'idocracy', it's your responsibility.

there should be dropping by plane of pill over the poor area, like in darfour, sudan, ethiopia with food ....

Excuse me?! It's MY responsibility to control other people's reproduction? WTF?! Us short-sighted people are saying it's their own damn responsibility to control themselves. I know it's a hard concept for most, but people need to practice personal responsibility. You want to go out and fuck somebody and not end up with a baby, buy your own damn birth control, condoms, sterilization, etc. Society is not your babysitter nor should it be your own personal bank account to pay for your life choices.

> Are you just stupid or crazy? 10$ or a
> 1000$ of tax-payer money, anyway? And
> you want to save the 10$?

Sugarbun, you seem to have bought into the tragic presumption that no matter what happens, we are each responsible for the other's outcomes.

This is not the case.

Also, don't be such a sopping dicky-dorkus. Your have no authority to tell the rest of us what our responsibilities will be, and tamping fertility in the Horn of Africa is not where your enthusiasm belongs.

> There is a lot of "free" being thrown about
> in comments

Exactly. And in the whole culture. It's a linguistic habit, presumably meaning 'Free from this one person's perspective that I'm not describing with clarity,' that quickly corrodes the thinking of both speaker and listener. Tracking eruptions of that locution will drive one to drink.

If only it could drive one home as well.

Look at a different, more pragmatic angle nico@hou. IF a woman is too irresponsible to look after her own birth controls, what makes you believe that she will take The Pill correctly? Everyday, the same way, ontime, without fail. This is an irresponsible, uneducated, barely human, right?

Why is it that she can't provide her own $10 a month? I certaily have to.

IF we need as a society to control what she is doing, it wont be pretty. The word I'm looking for is "DRACONIAN". If this lack of personal responsibility is so bad, and she is incapable of making a rational decision... the decision will be permanent forcible sterilization. It's the only way to be sure, right?

No?

This is the sort of decision you get when the govt gets involed. They dictate what you can do. Sometimes it's like hitting the jackpot, and others cleaning the chamberpot. The best bet is to make your own decision, and keep them out of it.

I certainly agree that it's better to spend 10 than 100... But this presupposes that it's my responsibility to spend the money at all.

Where is that level of requirement, where is that entitlement coming from?

Doesn't it seem WRONG for the conscientious to be forced to pay for the irresponsible?

Just another thought---

Hormonal birth control is going to be covered with no copay because it prevents a certain medical condition, pregnancy. Now, pregnancy is certainly a medical condition, but it's not a particularly harmful one in most cases. In some cases, of course there are negative outcomes and even death, but on the whole, pregnancy is a healthy state and multiple pregnancies in healthy young women are associated with lowered risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Indeed, most* of the concern about preventing pregnancy involves preventing parenthood, especially parenthood right now, which is most certainly not a medical condition and not by any means the absolute gonna-happen outcome of pregnancy, as adoption and abortion exist.

But what about the conditions that hormonal birth control causes or contributes to? Those conditions are hypertension (which is the number one reason for kidney failure requiring dialysis in the US), weight gain, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. There is not one good outcome, medically speaking, associated with those conditions, and yet hormonal birth control is known to cause or contribute to all of them.

*Obviously some people have medical reasons to avoid pregnancy. However, there are plenty of other ways to do this without putting yourself at risk of the conditions above. Plus, some of the most common medical reasons to avoid pregnancy---being over 35, having or being at risk for hypertension---already make you a bad candidate for hormonal birth control.

Will someone please take at least a guess regarding my question on the male pill? Thank you.

Lenona, with regards to a male pill, if the opinions of my male friends are a reflection of the general male population as a whole, very few would avail themselves of taking it and the couple that said they'd consider taking it also said they doubted they'd remember to take it regularly. I honestly don't think there would be much of a market for it, especially considering it would be much easier to just go buy condoms as needed. As it is, women use birth control in low numbers anyway (I've seen estimates ranging from 10% on the low end up to 20% on the high end taking it and about 1% of that using it for a non-contraceptive purpose). I know I've read numerous times over the years about research and development of a male contraceptive being developed, but also that there were a ton of undesired side effects, namely erectile dysfunction and impotence, and that they also were not that effective in reducing/eliminating sperm production nor preventing sperm from entering ejaculate. It's a lot easier to alter/suppress a woman's cycle hormonally than it is to cause the body to stop producing sperm.

In summary, I just don't think there would be a market for a male contraceptive, nor do I think there would be many in that market that would use it correctly.

That still doesn't answer the question, which was:

Let's pretend the most popular form of birth control, right now, was a prescription pill for men. If that WERE the most popular method, would the average user want - or demand - that that be covered? If not, why not?

Finally, I'm guessing that when Vasalgel makes it to the U.S., since it's nonhormonal AND you can't forget to take it, it will be more popular than any male pill. So maybe I should have used that as an insurance example instead.