Birth Control in the News: What You Need to Know

by , March 11, 2012 — 3 Comments
Birth Control in the News

Have you been surprised lately to find that topics you typically discuss only with your gynecologist are now, well, everywhere?

Contraception has been thrust into the national and political spotlight, and everyone is paying attention—especially as we get closer to election season.

What exactly is being debated, though? And who’s saying what? Read on for a round-up of the highlights of birth control in the headlines.

 

 

Obama: Contraception Coverage Without a Co-Pay 

President Obama’s healthcare reform includes a mandate that employer-provided insurance cover contraception without a co-pay by 2013. While the law exempts churches and houses of worship from having to provide such coverage against their beliefs, it didn’t, as originally written, exempt other faith-based organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, that serve the public and often employ people of different faiths.

Catholic bishops and others concerned about religious freedom immediately protested, and Obama reached a compromise. Now, employees of objecting faith-based organizations will receive contraception coverage directly from the insurance company at no charge, rather than through their employer’s policy.

Still, some think the law infringes on religious freedom, while others argue that the compromise fails to take into account the benefits of making contraception coverage available to all. For a look at the issue that respectfully addresses religious concerns yet takes into account the positive impact of access to birth control, check out this recent op-ed from Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times.

 

The Blunt Amendment

Republican senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, who felt Obama’s compromise was still overreaching, introduced a bill that would give employers and insurance companies broader moral exemptions on health coverage. Arguments arose around the vague wording of the amendment, which would have allowed opting out of more than just contraception coverage. The amendment failed by a small margin after four days of debates, but according to Speaker John Boehner, Republicans in the House intend to introduce a similar measure.

 

Where Are Women’s Voices in this Discussion?

When a House oversight committee held a hearing on contraception coverage without a single woman on the panel of witnesses, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Eleanor Holmes Norton, both Democrats, walked out in protest. “I look at this panel, and I don’t see one single individual representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventative health care services, including family planning,” said Maloney.

Chairman Darrell Issa responded that the meeting was not focused on contraception, but religious liberty—a topic on which the proposed female witness, Sandra Fluke, a law student at Georgetown University, was not qualified to testify. The five witnesses on the panel were all male professors or religious leaders. Listen to Norton’s comments to MSNBC (and check out a great Funny or Die video poking fun at the idea of an all-male panel on women’s health).

 

Uncivil Discourse

While even Rick Santorum agreed that a comment from one of his financial backers that birth control is as cheap as an aspirin held between the knees was in poor taste, Rush Limbaugh last week went stomach-churningly further in attacking Sandra Fluke personally for her testimony (which she gave as the lone witness at a Democrat-sponsored unofficial hearing). After calling her a “slut” and a “prostitute,” he added, “so Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal: If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we all can watch.”

Though he later offered a statement of apology, Limbaugh forgets that birth control isn’t only used to prevent pregnancy. As Fluke pointed out, many women use it as preventative medicine for other conditions, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis (the transcript of her testimony is available online). More frighteningly, Limbaugh is not the only one who has made such misogynistic comments. (Watch Fluke and Joan Walsh of Salon discuss the personal attack with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews.)

 

The Ongoing Debate

In a recent New York Times op-ed, Louise Trubek, who, as a Yale law student in 1957 joined a lawsuit to challenge Connecticut’s ban on birth control, asks, “can we still be arguing about a woman’s ability to control her own fertility?” The outcome of her case, Poe v. Ullman, was a ruling to provide women access to the support they need to pursue rewarding careers and grow a healthy family. But Trubek reminds us now how far we still have to go to guarantee social support to meet those needs, especially for poor women.

As women’s health initiatives remain at the forefront of media and political discussion, let’s acknowledge that while our individual views may differ—and while sex, religion, and politics can be sensitive topics—we share a common end goal here: empowering women to make healthy decisions.

 

Photo courtesy of Debra Sweet.

About the Author

Little brings Emily more of a thrill than taking a so-so sentence and making it shine or giving an alright paragraph more of a punch. She’s a self proclaimed word-nerd whose penchant for language took her from barista-ing in a bookstore café during college to serving as a Fulbright English Teaching Assistant in a high school just outside of Madrid after graduating with a double major in English and Spanish. Since returning to the States over a year ago, Emily has worked as Associate Editor for The Daily Muse and established a Spanish language social media presence for one of Southwest Michigan’s leading credit unions. Recently married, she, her hubby, and their crazy cat, Angel, call the shores of Lake Michigan home. Follow her on twitter @EmENickerson.

3 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Online Gym
Online Gym

I stopped taking birth control, I spoke to a couple doctors and they were telling me that it's not good for us ladies. There are other reasons why the government wants the population to take this stuff.

Two thumbs down, Just be safe:)

Vipul Naik
Vipul Naik

I'd also like to add that there are three very different questions:

(1) Do governments have the authority to ban birth control pills?

(2) Do governments have the authority to mandate that all insurance policies cover zero co-pay birth control pills?

(3) Is it wise policy for the government to mandate that all insurance policies cover zero co-pay birth control pills?

I think these are very different questions and one can come up with very different answers. Very few people (perhaps Rick Santorum being among them) are arguing that governments have the authority to ban birth control pills. People (male and female!) are, however, divided over (2) and (3). But I think it's a stretch to say that people who (question the authority of the government to mandate that all insurance policies cover zero co-pay birth control) are _necessarily_ in opposition to female reproductive freedom. Opposition to the mandate is also coming from people who have passionately advocated far more controversial forms of reproductive freedom: test tube babies, freezing sperms and eggs, surrogacy contracts, etc.

To take a related example, consider:

(1') Do governments have the authority to ban condoms?

(2') Do governments have the authority to mandate that all insurance policies cover zero co-pay condoms?

(3') Is it wise policy for the government to mandate that all insurance policies cover zero co-pay condoms?

I think it would be a stretch to argue that anybody who answers no to (2') and (3') is against male (or female) reproductive freedoms.

I'm not saying that birth control pills are exactly analogous to condoms, only that the similarities are strong enough that it is not appropriate to demonize opponents of mandates for either as being against male or female reproductive freedom.

Vipul Naik
Vipul Naik

You write: "As Fluke pointed out, many women use it as preventative medicine for other conditions, such as polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis"

Per Fluke's testimony, and also confirmed through other sources, such uses of contraceptive pills are covered by Georgetown Law School's policy. Her complaint (as I understand it) is that one of her friends tried to claim this benefit for PCOS (which was covered by the policy) but the insurance company refused to provide the coverage. I don't know the details, but if, per Fluke's testimony, the insurance company violated the insurance contract, that is an issue of negligence/malpractice on the part of the insurance company.

I'm not sure what the connection is to the question of whether zero co-pay birth control pills (for *non*-medical reasons) should be mandated in insurance policies. I _think_ what Fluke was saying was that if birth control for all reasons was covered, then people with PCOS would be less likely to be the victims of malpractice by insurers who try to deny them coverage on flimsy pretexts. As far as I understand, this was only tangential to her argument, and would not be convincing if it had been her sole argument. [For instance, should insurance policies cover skin care lotions for everybody because some people who have special skin conditions need to use these for medical purposes, and some insurers may violate their contracts to cover skin care lotions under such circumstances? What about multi-vitamin pills, which may be medically prescribed for some people with severe vitamin deficiencies but are used by others to stay fit?]

So, it seems a little out of place to criticize Rush Limbaugh* (or anybody else) for failing to note that contraceptive pills have non-contraceptive uses. To my knowledge, he has neither denied that such uses exist nor has he expressed any opinion on whether such policies should be covered by insurance mandates.

*I do think it's perfectly fair to criticize Limbaugh for his use of swear words, his sloppy and cavalier use of logic, his apparent ignorance of the way birth control pills work, and his use of condom prices to calculate the price of birth control.