And has for a long time, too. In the recent debates about birth control, some people seem to assume that there are a large number of women for whom it’s difficult to get birth control; for example it’s part of the premise of this thread that mandatory free contraception coverage will make it easier for women to get birth control.
This assumption is incorrect. Birth control is readily available to every woman and man in the country regardless of job status, insurance, or anything else. This CDC report exhaustively documents that contraceptive use is nearly universal among women who want to use it. Clearly no one is having trouble getting it. It also surveys women who had an unexpected pregnancy and didn’t use birth control about their reasons for not doing so. Many reasons were given; lack of access was not among them. (See Table E, page 14) This is just common sense, since so many organizations give the stuff away. When I was in college, the administration was keen to emphasize that they had free condoms available on every floor of every dorm, since apparently it’s unreasonable to ask students to ride an elevator to get their free condoms. Conservative writer Charles Cooke decided to check a website and found over 300 places giving away condoms and other birth control methods within five miles of his office. To check whether New York City is an outlier in that regard, I looked in the Yellow Pages for my small, southern, conservative, Republican-dominated town and easily found two nearby clinics giving away free birth control. Plainly no one’s having trouble accessing birth control. Hence the claims that we must take away the freedom of employers to make choices about their own insurance plans in order to increase access to birth control is hard for me to take seriously.
Most Americans have access to blood transfusions too. I would object if an employer who was a Christian Scientist could offer health insurance to his employers that did not covered blood transfusions.
Over a million women in the US use hormonal birth control for medical conditions unrelated to birth control.
Hormonal birth control is expensive and available by prescription only. You can’t grab it out of a bowl in a dorm lobby.
You really should read Ms. Fluke’s testimony to Congress that precipitated this topic of conversation. You’re displaying a spectacular lack of knowledge about the debate.
Of course, I could be wrong - maybe you believe there’s a lack of awareness that condoms are available for free in numerous places and there’s a debate about that raring to go. I’m guessing there probably isn’t.
According the the panel that made the recommendation, lack of access to BC in the US took the form of woman unable to afford effective but expensive methods (IUD, the pill, sterilization) and so were forced to fall back on less effective methods (condoms, spermicide, withdrawal). So while your right that condoms are easy and cheap to obtain, that doesn’t really solve the problem. And given that half of pregnancies in the US are unintended, its a fairly large problem.
Also, its a little silly to point to a table where lack of access wasn’t given as a possible answer as evidence that lack of access wasn’t the reason for non-use of contraception.
No, everyone in the US has access to condoms. According to the report you cited and the table dealing with unexpected pregnancy, 23.7% of the women in the study could have avoided pregnancy if they’d been on hormonal birth control. That’s the sum of possible responses: “did not expect to have sex” and “male partner didn’t want to use BC.” And while you say there was no choice for “lack of access,” it’s pretty clearly tied to “did not expect to have sex.” In other words, the respondent didn’t expect to have sex and didn’t have access at the time that mattered most.
So perhaps condoms, for some reason other than their actual reliability, are not the best contraception.
Consider this: the US rate of unintended pregnancy is above the world average and well above the post-industrialised average at about 49% of pregnancies. In Europe, where in many countries the pill is completely free, the rate is lower with eg France at 33% (of pregnancies) and the Netherlands at 13% (of women experiencing unwanted pregnancy)*
So perhaps there is access to free contraception, but it is just not as effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy as providing free hormonal contraception as well. Then maybe those people who are assuming it is difficult for certain women to obtain birth (as per the OP) they might be referring to them obtaining adequate or desired birth control.
*Sorry about the apples and oranges, just what I could find for now.
You can thank the sexual revolution and liberals for easy access to condoms (and I agree that they are often not the best solution.) When I was in college - in Cambridge, MA, not the Bible Belt, condoms were only available in drug stores and behind the counter. Which is probably where Rick Sanctimonious would like to stash them once more.
Eh. As already stated, specifically condoms are easily available (for most persons, in most places). But that’s not really the issue at play here, and you do a disservice to the debate by not making clear exactly what you’re talking about in the OP. Hormonal contraception is just a different beast altogether from barrier contraceptives — specifically medical applications for one; it’s less prone than condoms to forgetfulness and the vagaries of the moment; and it’s more in control of the woman.
Might there be a problem for some women in obtaining the pill? Take a look at table 11 in the linked PDF, and note the direction of correlation between socioeconomic class and whether a woman is on the pill.
Should an employer be “free” to make decisions for me about how I spend my paycheck?
If not, then why should they be “free” to determine how I use other parts of my compensation package?
The idea that companies should have a “right” to meddle in their employees’ personal lives is disgusting. Pay me to do my fucking job and keep your busybody nose out of my fucking personal life.
I’ll also add that only male, latex condoms with spermicidal lubricant are readily available as giveaways. Hell, it’s hard to find anything else even if you’re paying for it. Female condoms and spermicide free condoms are vanishingly rare, even at LGBT clinics, and latex-free condoms are usually not given away because they are rather expensive.
So all you sluts with a latex allergy, or a spermicide allergy, or frequent yeast infections or UTI’s or boyfriends who won’t wear a condom…you don’t exist, because everyone in the USA has access to birth control. What’s the matter with you, prostitute?
I admit, I’m torn on the actual issue at hand. While I think it would be great public health policy and I hate to see religious employers allowed to impose their religion on their employees, at the same time I don’t think free birth control for wealthy insured women is a real high priority. I’d rather see some way of diverting some of the insurance companies’ funds to Planned Parenthood and the like, instead, so that the people who demonstrate financial need get the cheap or free pills. But that’s hardly realistic, or constitutional, I realize that.
It’s important not to let emotions take rein and go too far here. In fairness, the controversy is not specifically about employers meddling in workers’ personal lives; the issue is the extent of control an employer can have in determining the nature of compensation packages. As a silly example, consider a company run by Mormons — we wouldn’t presumably expect them to offer bottles of booze and Starbucks gift certificates as fringe benefits.
This is another matter entirely, of course, but “companies shouldn’t meddle in employees’ private lives” isn’t the proper way to frame the discussion.
You’re attacking the wrong argument. Giving your employees their compensation in the form of liquid cash means interfering less in how they spend it. You’re the one who is saying “You’re not allowed to spend your paycheck on whatever you want, because part of it’s going to contraception insurance, whether you need it or not.”
The whole issue is a huge red herring that the GOP are trying to exploit.
Facts are that pharmacists routinely fill scripts for Aids drug cocktails, venereal disease, pain meds after an abortion, and possibly hundreds of other issues that would/should receive the same, ‘conscious’, objection, yet fail to. Never even referenced. Not an issue somehow. Hmmm, why would that be?
They want to play politics, using their profession, as a bully pulpit. They want to target women’s reproductive rights.
They deserve severe censure from their professional overseer, for behaviour, ‘unbecoming’, and to lose their certifications, in my opinion.
… Yeah. The issue only came up because the Obama admin is trying to force religious organizations who specifically object to it to cover all birth control, despite the fact that numerous forms are available readily and freely, it’s never a financial surprise or unforeseen crisis, and unless you desperately want something exotic, it’s usually quite inexpensive.
This is not a legitimate or sensible insurance scheme. It’s a political payoff, and it isn’t Republicans who are playing politics.
So, is it your contention that the real issue is only these 1M women who need BC for medical conditions are the issue? Because if that’s the case, then let’s cover those 1M women and be done with it.
I think it’s very telling that this is the bit you snipped:
“Facts are that pharmacists routinely fill scripts for Aids drug cocktails, venereal disease, pain meds after an abortion, and possibly hundreds of other issues that would/should receive the same, ‘conscious’, objection, yet fail to. Never even referenced. Not an issue somehow. Hmmm, why would that be?”
It’s a craven use of their professional position to further their personal political agenda. This much seems self evident to me.
My insurance is part of my compensation package (not counting the part that comes directly out of MY pocket). My employer’s objection to birth control shouldn’t overrule my right to have my insurance cover prescription drugs, which is, after all, one of the primary purposes of insurance.
And because it bears repeating, just in case someone who’s not impervious to reason is reading… condoms are the only form of birth control available readily and freely, and they’re seldom the best solution.
And no sensible person thinks that using condoms alone is adequate.
This debate would not be happening if Muslim employers were trying to restrict their employee’s health insurance from covering surgeries involving pig heart valves.