CONNECT
Mourdock Argues Insurance Companies Shouldn’t Cover Birth Control at All
Think Progress / News Report
Published: Wednesday 24 October 2012
Indiana Senate nominee Richard Mourdock (R) said last night that pregnancies resulting from rape are a “gift” that “God intended.”
Indiana Senate nominee Richard Mourdock (R) doesn’t just want to prevent women who have been raped from obtaining an abortion; he also doesn’t think they should be able to access affordable birth control through their health insurance that could prevent such a pregnancy.
Months before Mourdock commented last night that pregnancies resulting from rape are a “gift” that “God intended,” ThinkProgress spoke with him at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference about Rick Santorum’s belief that insurance plans shouldn’t cover birth control at all. When asked whether he agreed with Santorum on the matter, Mourdock replied: “I do, I do.”
KEYES: I know Rick Santorum in his speech was talking a lot about this. He even went so far as to say, “I don’t think insurance plans should be covering birth control in the first place.” Do you think he’s right about that?
MOURDOCK: I do, I do. I don’t think that’s the role of government. We have to start rolling back government. There are many issues out there beyond Obamacare, but really the issue overlying everything is, is this nation going to survive? And that ultimately becomes an issue of economics.
Watch it:
Santorum’s argument goes well beyond the standard GOP opposition to the new Obamacare directive that insurance companies are required to provide contraceptive care without a co-pay. Instead, Santorum reasoned, insurance companies shouldn’t cover birth control at all, regardless of co-pay, because as he said, contraception is a “relatively small expenditure” that women shouldn’t “need insurance for.” In fact, women spend about 68 percent more than men do on their out-of-pocket health care expenses, partly because of the high cost of contraceptive services, and one in three women has reported struggling to afford birth control at some point in their lives.
Earlier this week, Mitt Romney starred in an ad for Mourdock, asking voters to “join me in supporting Richard Mourdock for U.S. Senate.” Romney has not cut an ad for any other Senate candidates in the general election.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Scott Keyes
Scott Keyes is an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Scott went to school at Stanford University where he received his B.A. in Political Science and M.A. in Sociology. He has appeared on MSNBC and TBD Newstalk TV and been a guest on many radio shows. His writing has been published by The Atlantic, Politico, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. Scott comes to DC from southwest Ohio, a state very near and dear to his heart.
ABOUT Travis Waldron
Travis Waldron is a reporter/blogger for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Travis grew up in Louisville, Kentucky, and holds a BA in journalism and political science from the University of Kentucky. Before coming to ThinkProgress, he worked as a press aide at the Health Information Center and as a staffer on Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway’s 2010 Senate campaign. He also interned at National Journal’s Hotline and was a sports writer and political columnist at the Kentucky Kernel, the University of Kentucky’s daily student newspaper.
10 comments on "Mourdock Argues Insurance Companies Shouldn’t Cover Birth Control at All"
October 25, 2012 4:21pm
I hate to think that, as a nation, we are on a path of self destruction. Since when do people think they can inflict their religion on others? Given the current political conditions and the prominance of people like Romney, Ryan, and the other Talibangelicals the only hope for this country is if the majority of people wake up and take a stand to get our Liberties and Rights back.
We have 3 choices, follow the jobs and leave this country behind, stand up and fight, or roll over and accept a Talibangelical dictatorship. The Tree of Liberty needs tending and watering.
October 25, 2012 8:06am
If they are not going to cover contraception, they should not cover drugs for impotence, either.
October 24, 2012 10:47pm
Christians need to STOP and LISTEN. Romney's promises to overturn Roe vs Wade will not stop abortion. States will then have the choice to outlaw. Many have laws on the books saying abortion can't be outlawed even if SCOTUS overturns. Most constitutional experts agree that SCOTUS won't overturn even if Romney appointed the most pro-life judge in the country. If a Christian is really concerned about eliminating abortion he would provide contraception and education. Washington Univ study proves it cuts abortion rate in HALF. Which are you more concerned about? The fetus being killed or the minimal cost of providing a benefit that will prevent conception, leading to abortion? If women don't get pregnant, they don't have abortions. What if the solution does not lay with the legal system. What if the Dems have a good solution for cutting abortion? If we ignore a viable option, then all this talk from my fellow Christians is just lip service. Give women birth control. Wearing a seatbelt does not encourage reckless driving. Wearing a life jacket doesn't make a person want to drown. Giving a woman long term birth control solutions will not make her promiscuous. I am a Christian. I care deeply about the sanctity of life. However, I am not willing to shut down my intellect and follow all of the other sheep down this Republican path that will not change anything.
October 24, 2012 4:15pm
I don't have a problem with insurance companies not providing whatever they do not want to provide. Nor should tax dollars EVER go to any insurance company--ever. I mean you can't bad mouth the evil government tax system and have your hand out at the same time..
You see, the conservative take on this is irrational. Here's why:
The CEO of Aetna has already come out and said that health insurance is not a sustainable business. If people continue to avoid insurance companies that do not provide them with their needs, then insurance companies will go out of business. This is what the CEO of AETNA was talking about.
So if staying in business is health insurance's goal, by offering less and getting less in revenue, they are acting irrationally.
@Ed,
Stand by Ed. You're ignorance about what is happening is going to not only surprise you, but terrify you: Nearly 50% of Americans, that's around 150 million people, are a cat's hear away from full insolvency.
And when 150 million angry, hungry, violent, and ignorant people hit the streets, your ignorant remarks are going to ring very hollow to them, perhaps even to yourself. Brace yourself. You're getting what you wished for.
October 24, 2012 2:07pm
ED:
Here you are again. Well, I don't know if WalMart sells birth control pills for $9 a month, but try to think a little beyond that, huh?
When a woman gets pregnant, then she's supposed to have lots of care during her pregnancy. MORE medical expenses, right?
And if she delivers in a hospital, whoa, there goes MORE high costs, and if it's a problem delivery, either the mother or the child may be in danger, and even if they're not, you still have MORE medical expenses.
So what have you saved from denying the woman the birth-control pills, either free or low-cost?
Do you work for the medical-industrial complex, by any chance?
Not providing the birth-control pills only leads to more medical expense, so why would you oppose it? (Think maybe that women should be "barefoot and pregnant" or what?)
I don't think there's any proof that using birth-control pills leads to promiscuity. However, even if it were true, does it somehow help the economy or lower health care costs by having MORE unwanted pregnancies?
Or would you prefer to encourage the need for more abortions?
October 24, 2012 12:12pm
The thing I don't get is that, and this is REAL, the insurance I used to have did not pay for contraceptives, whether for "pregnancy avoidance" or any other medical reason, but they DID pay for Viagra - with no co-pay. So, sorry guys, this is not about cost, and it sure ain't about abstinence! Why don’t we talk about what really going on here?
October 24, 2012 11:45am
Ed---do you have any clue at all...that half the country lives from paycheck to paycheck and $9 a month means more to the underpaid than obviously to you. Republicans never look beyond the surface of anything. You only have more money in YOUR pockets because some people aren't paid enough for the work they do keeping services and products cheaper that you use. So you are using other people's money every day....
October 24, 2012 10:23am
The highest incidence of unwed teen pregnancy is in Southern red states that teach abstinence-only in high school. Maybe teaching abstinence promotes promiscuity.
Access to birth control pills does not encourage promiscuity.
Religious types live a pretend world so there is little hope of convincing those that have already made up their minds.
October 24, 2012 9:52am
At $9/month for pregnancy avoidance pills (from, e.g. WalMart Pharmacies), the overhead in giving them away for free dwarfs any possible economic advantage and encourages promiscuity.
Mourdock is right, pregnancy avoidance pills and morning after pills should not be paid for with other people's money.
October 25, 2012 4:06pm
Those $9 "pills" are not all that effective. The pills are generic and are not always the formula they are supposed to be as they are purchased because they were the lowest bidder.
On the other hand, I am so happy that you will take in all those "unplanned" and "unwanted" kids. How Christian of you to step forward and offer. Most people who shout the mantra "...don't want to pay for someone else's birth control" don't want to pay for their pregnancies or children in any way.