The Birth Control "Controversy"

You have to be living under a rock to not know about the birth control “controversy” that has been brewing over the past several months. Conservative politicians are trying everything to deal contraception use in this country a death blow: spreading misinformation, shouting about morals, taking funding away from programs that support contraception use and even trying to pass bills in Congress to allow employers to refuse to grant their employees access to any kind of medicine or treatment that they object to for religious reasons (including access to contraception). I am still shocked that birth control is a topic up for debate in this day and age, especially considering the fact that birth control use in this country is the norm. According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than 99% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 “who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.” Also 62% of 62 million women between the ages of 15 and 44 currently use a method of birth control. Not only that, men use and value birth control as well. So what’s the point in fighting something that most of population does not have a problem with?

I’ve been asking myself this question for months now and I think the best way to try to answer it is to look at the arguments against contraception. From what I can see, the most recent arguments against full and unhindered access to contraception are: It is morally dangerous. And insurance companies should not fully fund it because it is a serious waste of taxpayer money. I am going to break down these arguments and explain why they are complete and utter nonsense.

Contraception is Morally Dangerous

In October 2011, Rick Santorum spoke with a reporter from the Evangelical blog “Caffeinated Thoughts” about his views on “the dangers of contraception”. Santorum believes that contraception is not ok “because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”. He continues on to say that “…if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation…then you diminish this very special bond between men and women…all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure”. So this makes one wonder: how are things supposed to be? Would it really be that wonderful to go back to a time where having sex meant playing Russian roulette because a woman had to worry that she would become pregnant before she was ready? No, of course not. And think about it: Men do not have this fear. They could have all the unprotected sex they want without ever having to worry about becoming pregnant. Men do not have to worry about carrying a baby for nine months and dealing with potential health risks due to the pregnancy and childbirth. In the end, Santorum makes it obviously clear that women having sex for simply pleasure (i.e. doing something that men can do) is somehow morally wrong and diminishing to healthy heterosexual relationships.

And what kind of women would dare to have sex without wanting to worry about getting pregnant? Sluts and prostitutes, according to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh calls Susan Fluke, a woman who spoke up about the importance of full birth control pill coverage by insurance companies (in her case, Georgetown University’s private insurance), a slut and a prostitute. He said that Fluke “went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex, she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.” He seems to think that the pill works just like a condom in the sense that a woman needs to take a pill every single time she wants to have sex. Clearly someone desperately needs to read my birth control 101 post. And another thing, this is not about the American people using their taxpayer money so women can have rampant sex. This is a about a law (The Affordable Care Act) that requires insurance companies (including Medicaid) to fully fund preventive services like contraception and contraceptive counseling without co-pays. This is because the Obama administration realizes that preventive reproductive health measures are essential for the general health of women. For example, full access to the birth control pill is not just about sex. The ability to have sex without becoming pregnant is important, but the birth control pill is essential for other reasons as well. Birth control pills reduce the pain of menstrual cramps, lighten period flows and offer protection against pelvic inflammatory diseases, which can lead to infertility if left untreated. Combination birth control pills (pills that have the hormones estrogen and progestin in them) also provide some protection against “acne, bone thinning, breast growths that are not cancer, ectopic pregnancy, endometrial and ovarian cancers, serious infection in the ovaries, [fallopian] tubes, and uterus, iron deficiency anemia, cysts in the breasts and ovaries and premenstrual symptoms, including headaches and depression”. But, of course, none of these things matter to Limbaugh.

And what about the Republican candidates? What do they have to say in response to Limbaugh’s highly offensive and ignorant statements? Romney casually replies, “That’s not the words I would have used” and Santorum explains that Rush is simply being an “absurd” entertainer. Neither of them condemns him outright. Romney is arguing over semantics, implying that he would not have used those exact words, but has similar views and Santorum saying he is absurd, but never comes out against what Limbaugh said. Why? Because they agree with Limbaugh. The candidates agree with the slut shaming of women who use birth control but won’t actually come out and say the incendiary things that Limbaugh would. Limbaugh is a shock jock while they are presidential candidates, trying to sneak their way into the White House.

Birth Control is a Waste of Money

Something that touches on both the moral and financial arguments against full access to birth control is the outrage from the Catholic Church and other religious groups as a result of the Affordable Care Act and creation of the Blunt Amendment. The Catholic Church and other religious groups complained that their businesses (i.e. religious hospitals and other religious institutions) should not be required to cover contraception in their employees’ health plans (without co-pays) if it is against their religious convictions. The Obama administration compromised, saying that if religious employers do not want to cover contraception then the insurance companies alone will cover it. The Catholic Church and other religious groups were not pleased and did not want to accept this compromise. In response, Senate Republicans put forth the Blunt Amendment, which stated that employers should be allowed to withhold any medication or treatment if it is against their religious beliefs. The medication/treatment could be birth control, but it could also be a blood transfusion if the religious institution does not believe in it. There was a vote in the Senate over a week ago on whether or not to add Blunt Amendment and the Senate voted against the amendment (51-48). Those who supported the Blunt Amendment argue that the Affordable Care Act is blocking the religious freedom of the employers. However, this argument does not take into consideration that allowing employers to decide what kind of healthcare their employees receive tramples on their right to good health and their own beliefs regarding what is right and wrong.

There are two contrasting arguments against insurance companies providing full access to contraception circling around. One, that birth control is cheap so why should it be covered by insurance companies and the second, covering birth control is a waste of precious tax money and it would be forcing people, who don’t agree with the use of birth control due to religious reasons, to pay for something they do not agree with. Rick Santorum used the first argument at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last month. He said that birth control only costs “a few dollars” and that it is “a minor expense” that the insurance companies should not have to cover because it “is not a critical economic need”. Well, actually, contraception costs much more than a few dollars. Without health insurance, a monthly pack of birth control pills can cost anywhere between $15 to $80 a month ($180 to $960 a year) and that’s one of the cheapest birth control methods. The most expensive would be surgical sterilization, which costs between $1,500 and $6,000. Secondly, providing contraception is a critical economic need. The birth control pill, especially, has health benefits beyond just preventing an unwanted pregnancy. Pregnancies, abortions and health problems cost money and this would be extra money that the insurance companies would have to pay. In fact, according to a report written by Adam Thomas for the Center on Children and Families, “taxpayer spending on Medicaid-subsidized medical care related to unintended pregnancy totals more than $12 billion annually”. Also allowing insurance companies to fund contraception will actually save money. Prevention against heavy and painful periods allows women to be more efficient in the workplace, resulting in more money being made. And let’s not forget that hormonal birth control protects against and treats some serious health issues. This preventive protection would also save insurance companies money that would have been spent on further, and possibly more expensive, treatments. Thomas agrees, saying, “…publicly financed mass media campaigns, comprehensive teen pregnancy prevention programs, and expansions in government subsidized family planning services are estimated to save taxpayers between two and six dollars for every dollar spent on them.”

And on the topic of not wanting to be forced to pay for things one doesn’t agree with: Um who does? If I could control where my tax money went, I sure as hell would not have financially supported the Iraq/Afghanistan war and abstinence-only/based education. So seriously, grow up.

And as a nail on the coffin on the financial argument against insurance companies funding contraception: Bill O’Reilly argued that if women’s contraception should be covered than “men’s activities” should be covered as well, like football equipment and injuries. Um wow, so sports are strictly “men’s activities”? No woman could possibly play or have an interest in football. And secondly, insurance companies do cover “men’s activities”. It’s called Viagra. So in his world, it is perfectly logical for men to have free access to erection pills, but women cannot have access to contraception to avoid becoming pregnant and to avoid suffering from health conditions. What else do men do with erections other than have sex? So really, tax money is being used so men can have sex. And unlike the birth control pill, men need to take Viagra every single time they have sex. Maybe conservatives are confusing how the birth control pill works with Viagra. Understandable. They seem to only care about men’s issues anyway.

In the end, as much as conservatives want you to believe otherwise, it is not about money or morality. It’s about punishment and control. They want to punish women for daring to have sex without the “consequences” of childbirth. It does not matter if you are married, single, have 5 kids already or never want kids. It does not even matter if you are using contraception for a completely different health-related reason. In their eyes, taking the pill or using other forms of contraception makes a woman a slut who must be punished.