The question you asked has two invalid premises, presumably put there in order to turn it from a question into a (invalid) attack. But I’ll pretend you’d asked a valid question instead, something ike,
“If condoms are less effective than other means of birth control, then why is so much energy being put into making them widely available?”
And there are a few answers to this.
STD Prevention. The pill, the diaphragm, IUDs, etc. don’t prevent STDs.
Impulse use. As noted earlier, some places put them on every floor of a dorm, because the goal is to provide contraceptives for folks who haven’t planned ahead. You know that group of people that doesn’t plan ahead? And you know that group of people who aren’t ready to be parents? And you know how much overlap there is between those two groups?
Condoms are a good form of birth control because you can start using them about ten seconds before you need them. You need to be on a pill for (IIRC) about a month before it becomes effective. IUDs and (I think) diaphragms require a doctor’s visit. Sterilization requires multiple visits.
Right now, the form of birth control best for impulsive promiscuous people (i.e., many youths) is fairly widely available. But the kinds best for planning people in a long-term relationship are expensive and much less widely available.
Condoms are also the form of birth control (other than withdrawal or abstinence or a vascetomy) that is primarily controlled by the male in the transaction. Every other form of birth controlled is in the hands of the woman.
You’re wrong. Obama’s new rule requires all employers (save those with fewer than 50 employees) to purchase insurance that covers all forms of birth control with no copay. That includes religious institutions and charities that are arms of those religious institutions. If any “business owned by churches” exist, the rule applies to them as well.
Uh, how exactly are the Catholic Bishops trying to force anyone to do anything? They aren’t. It’s the Obama Administration that is trying to force everybody in the country to live by its rule, not anyone associated with the Catholic Church.
No. That certainly wins the non-sequitur of the year award. You quoted two questions that I asked; have you any desire to answer those questions?
I understand that, what I’m saying is that it’s crap that they can pick a plan that doesn’t cover birth control pills. BCP are, IMO, a bare-minimum “what the fuck do I pay for insurance for if they’re not going to cover my ONE prescription?” thing. While it’s unfortunate what happened to your sister, and I’m sympathetic, it’s not really analogous.
They are being “Forced” to pay for something that is against their beliefs, why can they be forced to pay for a retirement plan that does but not a healthcare benefit?
There’s also no movement to force employers to give free ponies to every worker, but there was a movement to make employers accessible to workers with mobility limitations and other physical impairments! Why would there be a movement to force employers to accommodate handicapped workers but not one to give them ponies? I’m so confused!
But aha, I figured it out: free ponies might be awesome, but the weight of pros and cons make handicapped accessibility worth it to enforce but not free ponies. Similarly, it may be worth it to mandate contraception coverage (from the perspective of economics and public health) but not worth it to mandate coverage of expensive and rarely-needed life-saving procedures! Ah, the world makes so much more sense now; you can thank me later. Hope you’re not too upset about not getting the pony.
If a person has access to a form of birth control, that person has access to birth control. It’s dishonest to assert that a certain policy will “increase access to birth control” when in reality it won’t give even a single person access to birth control, but will only let those who already have such access get more expensive forms of birth control. Likewise, if I gave money to a charity that promised it was increasing access to food and later learned they were serving filet mignon and other fancy foods to people who already had plenty of food, I’d reasonably think that I’d been mislead.
My original post was addressed to people who think that there’s trouble accessing birth control in the USA. You may think of the issue differently, but most of the proponent’s of Obama’s policy don’t phrase their goals as you do. (In any case, findings from a panel picked by President Obama that ended up agreeing with Obama’s desire to increase his own power are hardly likely to convince skeptics.)
I misunder-read your post. And I’m in complete agreement with you. I’m pissed off I have to pay 100% for my IUDs, but if I was willing to use hormonal BC (I’m over 40 and a smoker and therefore, at high risk for stroke and blood clots if I used the pill), it would be mostly covered, but probably not 100%. I think it’s crap that my company is willing to include hormonal BC in the formulary, but not non-hormonal. grr.
We are all forced to pay for things that are against our beliefs. My insurance payments pay for other people to stay on life support far beyond my own belief on when life support should be removed - that the nature of insurance. Our taxes pay for things we dont agree with, whether you are a pacifist who would like to defund the DoD or s conservative who’d like to see welfare defended Oran environmentalist upset over the recently passed Stillwater bridge.
If you can only get one form of BC, and then a law is passed so that you can get several better types, your access to BC has increased.
Filet Mignon isn’t any better at feeding hungry people then other foods. An IUD is a better option then a condom, and allowing people to choose between the two is an increase in the access they have to BC. If your isolated town only has a small clinic with a single doctor, you have access to health care, if a hospital opens up with an ER and specialists, your access to healthcare has increased. Access isn’t a binary thing, you can have more or less access to a good or service.
There is trouble accessing BC in the USA. People can’t afford more effective methods and so fall back on less effective ones. The result is unintended pregnancies. Increasing woman’s access to BC will lead to fewer unintended pregnancies.
I agree that your IUD should be covered, especially as hormonal methods are contraindicated. Just out of curiosity and if you don’t mind answering, how much is your IUD, and how often if at all does it have to be replaced?
You are misinformed. The rule says that if they provide health insurance, they may not provide the birth control. It is instead provided by the insurance company at no cost. Why not do some research on this? You’re obviously upset about it, but you’re upset at phantoms that don’t exist.
Catholic Bishops are trying to use their position as employers to deny women birth control, even when it isn’t purchased by them. They are attempting to assert temporal power. And honestly, they are complete jerks for doing so.
Of course you think that. Because you probably only care if Christians get to dominate the country. But sadly for you, the founders thought that was a stupid idea.
Likewise, if I gave money to a charity that promised it was increasing access to food, and a regulation was being passed to require that vitamin D be added to their milk, because studies had shown that, say, 10% of the children who depended on the program for food came down with rickets, I would not be protesting the regulation.
I would also not characterize it as an increase in cost, even though it costs more, because the point of the program is not to ‘provide food’ but to serve the nutrition needs of the client population. I would also not point at the 10% and say, well if they need more expensive food, they should get it other places.
It has to be replaced every 5 years (Mirena). The copper types are replaced every ten years. When I got mine, five years ago, my total cost was somewhere in the $750 range. I just got a quote for its replacement, which is in the neighborhood of $1000. It’s a good thing I’m relatively privileged (not wealthy by any stretch, but I can afford this because I don’t have kids. Ironic, no?) and have a Flexible Spending Account and knew this was coming. I called the doctor’s office during open enrollment to figure out how much to feed into my FSA this year so that I could cover the cost that way.
I don’t know what other non-hormonal options I’d have if not for the IUD. I don’t think diaphragms are any more effective than condoms; maybe a smidge. I guess I’d be relying on condoms, perimenopause, and hope! I’d have a hard time finding a doctor who would do surgery (tubal) on someone who doesn’t have kids… because I might change my mind some day, ya know. :smack:
This. It is really despicable that these kid-f@ckers want to limit access to effective birth control even when it is given at no cost. Why do people still listen to these rapist/paedophilic degenerates?
Do you really not see the difference between giving someone money and then that person spending it to, say, buy crack, and giving the person crack?
People who receive moeny, as a salary, from a Catholic institution can use the money to pay an abortion, it is different to pmake the Church pay for the abortion.
Are there those many women who work in 50+ employee companies that also have access to a health plan but that don’t have enough money for BC?
Most companies require their employees to pay some portion of insurance costs out of pocket. Howsabout we just say the the birth control comes out of MY contribution? That work for you?
And I’m in complete agreement with you. I’m pissed off I have to pay 100% for my IUDs, but if I was willing to use hormonal BC (I’m over 40 and a smoker and therefore, at high risk for stroke and blood clots if I used the pill), it would be mostly covered, but probably not 100%. I think it’s crap that my company is willing to include hormonal BC in the formulary, but not non-hormonal. grr.