CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 25 October 2012
We can’t afford not to ensure that those who want birth control, get it.
‘Access’ to Birth Control Doesn’t Count
Mitt Romney is running ads explaining that he does not object to birth control. But no one questions his stance that women should have, as the ads say, “access” to contraception. They already do. They also have access to Coach handbags and flights to Acapulco. And that's where the Romney smokescreen, intended to close a gender gap favoring Democrats, needs clearing.
Most women of childbearing age would consider birth control an essential part of their health care. But of the medical services employers must provide under the new health care law, Romney singles out birth control as one thing that should be optional.
Sure, most women can afford birth control. Women who lead disciplined lives would move heaven and earth to manage their fertility. From a practical standpoint, these women can be counted on to take care of business. To them, this exclusion in coverage is merely insulting.
But they are not the concern. The concern is women scraping by. Some live paycheck to paycheck, or don't have one. Some are high school kids with no income stream. Some are strangers to the larger world of responsibility or lack the mental capacity to make sound decisions about unprotected sex.
These are the women who may not dig into their empty or messy pockets for the $120 to $1,000 a year needed to buy contraception. Also, to obtain the pill, one must first visit a doctor and get a prescription. Organized women do what they must. Disorganized women don't get around to it.
Consider the low-income 24-year-old wanting to have sex with her boyfriend and not wanting to get pregnant. She knows where she can find birth control pills, but rather than spend a week's pay to get there, she rationalizes: "This the 'safe' part of my monthly cycle. I probably won't get pregnant, and so I'll take the risk."
Next thing you know, she's pregnant.
She'll either have an abortion or join the growing armies of unmarried women who have babies out of wedlock.
The first scenario, an abortion, is anathema to social conservatives. The second scenario, another potentially dysfunctional family headed by a single parent, worries thinking Americans of most political persuasions. Not providing this mainstream pharmaceutical — free! — to the women who need it most is crazy social policy.
We know the politics. We know that the Catholic Church, being theologically opposed to birth control, has pushed for this exclusion. We know that the health care reforms make an exception for churches, but not for the hospitals, schools and other entities they run. But that should be exception enough.
Romney wants to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. I think early abortions should be easy to get but that abortion is a complex issue with strong views on all sides. Arguing over whether birth control should be basic of health care coverage is something else entirely and hard to fathom. The vast majority of American Catholics use birth control without apology.
The Gates Foundation runs a program providing contraceptives in impoverished countries. Melinda Gates, a practicing Catholic, staunchly defends it. By being able to control their fertility, she argues, women can begin a "virtuous economic cycle."
Rich America has a poor country expanding within its borders. We, too, must help women in the poor America start a "virtuous economic cycle."
Yes, all women have "access" to birth control. But with effective contraception costing hundreds a year, otherwise responsible low-income women might take their chances and have sex without it. We can't afford not to ensure that those who want birth control, get it.
Copyright Creators.com
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop’s nationally syndicated column appears in over 150 newspapers, including The Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, Seattle Times, Denver Post and Newsday. The twice-a-week column is distributed by Creators Syndicate, in Los Angeles.
Harrop has written for numerous other publications, ranging from The New York Times and Institutional Investor, to Harper’s Bazaar and Metropolitan Home. Previously, she covered business for Reuters Ltd., in New York, and was a financial editor for The New York Times News Service.
A Loeb Award finalist for economic commentary, Harrop was also honored by the National Society of Newspaper Columnists. Over the years, the New England Associated Press News Executives Association has named her for five awards.
Top Stories
By Tara Culp- Ressler
8 comments on "‘Access’ to Birth Control Doesn’t Count"
October 28, 2012 11:16am
A vote for Romney is for the government take-over of the uterus and vagina.
When I see so many citizens willing to vote for that fraud I'm reminded of how, "Fools and their freedom - are easily parted."
October 26, 2012 6:24pm
This whole issue of the Catholic Church opposing contraceptives deserves some mention.
I'm an ex-Catholic, though in my youth I believed I had a religious vocation. Anyway, I believe abortion should be legal for valid reasons, but given the Catholic belief that the fetus is a human being, I can understand their opposition to abortion. That is, I find it logical, given their beliefs. But why oppose contraceptives? That makes no sense at all. As has been pointed out, the world has more people than it can sustainably support. You're not going to stop sexual activity by telling people to "just say no."
It seems the arguments against birth control are that 1) it's artificial, and 2) it defeat's God's designs. And this argument is specious, especially when coming from a man who wears clothes (an artificial habit), flies all over the planet (though he has no wings), addresses millions of the faithful through TV and radio, and travels on roads faster than 60 mph, though he was born with no wheels. So much for the "artificial" argument.
Does taking the Pill defeat God's designs for man and woman? Maybe, but then ask yourself if it's not interfering with God's designs to have a heart-bypass, which any Pope will get if he needs it. So, why is birth control bad, while death control is good? Wouldn't either "defeat God's designs"?
The REAL reason why the Church seems to oppose contraception is that it allows people to enjoy the pleasures of sex without suffering for it. For centuries, when clergy wanted to convince intelligent young men to become celibate priests or monks, they would point to the poor peasant family, the wife-mother of a dozen or more kids looking frazzled and well-past her age, and the hubby-father doomed to die at any early age from sheer exhaustion from trying to feed them. "Such is the punishment for the sins of lust," such an argument would go. For centuries, as I say, this worked to draw some of the brightest young people into religious vocations, though it didn't guarantee they would ALWAYS be celibate.
But look at modern men and women. They can hop in the sack and not worry about the "punishment" of bearing children. Shameful, must be a sin. So contraception is opposed. This is a simplification, perhaps, but it's near the truth. Yet if you think about it logically, all Christians who oppose abortion should welcome contraceptive measures, because it's not rocket science to know that the more pregnancies that are prevented, the fewer will be terminated. Indeed, Christians should be among the world's greatest supporters of contraception.
Well, most of us know that the majority of American Catholics ignore the Pope's condemnation of birth control. It reminds me of an old joke about an Italian peasant woman telling the Pope (after a sermon condemning the Pill), "you no play-a the game, so you no make-a the rules."
The planet needs fewer people, not more. The future of human civilization needs fewer people. There's no reason for a woman to get pregnant every time a sexual act is performed during her fertile cycle, whether she's married or not.
Preventing pregnancy is the way to go if you want to eliminate most abortions, and it should be free to all women who can't afford it. Merely saying "it should be available" is somehow ignoring reality. But the Party of the Rich seems to be expert at that.
October 26, 2012 6:05am
I am sometimes mystified over the things Americans will argue about, such as contraception being a part of health care coverage. I just fail to understand why this is an issue. Fertility is an issue of health, period. Women should, no, women must have control over their fertility so it follows that contraception be a part of medical coverage. All Americans (and humans worldwide for that matter) should have adequate health care provided as a social service by their government and fertility is a health issue.
This makes sense in so many areas of the social landscape, which is why I'm often appalled that such an issue becomes so contentious. For one, there are too many humans on the planet and access to contraception is a handy method of helping to mitigate this. More access to contraception is needed, certainly not less and those who bring the idea of promiscuity into the discussion are being inflammatory and manipulative at the very least. I've heard the same arguments levied against sex education and it is just as fallacious there as it is here.
Religion also wants to insert itself into this discussion where it has no business. What I mean by that is that religion should have no part in determining whether or not contraception is a provided health service. If it is against your religious belief then simply do not avail yourself of it but, by attempting to keep it out of regularly covered medical services religion is affecting those who do not subscribe to any particular ideology. Therefore, religious institutions should play no part in deciding the fate of contraception as a general part of health coverage.
October 25, 2012 7:18pm
Old hat, you should read the first amendment. By changeing the laws to fit the religious beliefs of a few, you are making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The only way you can have freedom of religion, is when you have freedom from other religions.
October 25, 2012 7:15pm
Why is it that nobody questions payment coverage for Viagra, etc? Why is that acceptable and not contraceptives? I think this is a viable arguement that points out that there is a definite double standard.
October 25, 2012 7:01pm
$1,000 is a lot of money for waitresses (median wage in 2010 $17,950 including tips) personal care aides ($19,640) childcare workers ($19,300)cashiers ($18,500) for details see my blog at connectingdots.us Peggy Wireman, Connecting the Dots: Government, Community and Family.
October 25, 2012 3:42pm
yes repeal the 1 st amendment
October 25, 2012 11:19am
Your points are well made, but your trust that Romney won't change his mind about a woman's right to use contraception, even if she can afford it, may be misplaced. He has been known to change his mind in the past and defiantly thinks he knows what's best for other people.