Planned Parenthood: The Pill is an entitlement
posted at 12:15 pm on June 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Is contraception a “preventive service”? Planned Parenthood believes so, and wants the government to classify the Pill as such in order to force insurers to provide it for free to consumers. At issue is the intent of Congress in defining prevention, as well as the ability to limit the language of ObamaCare to keep it from becoming yet another runaway entitlement:
As health reform regulations begin to take shape, Planned Parenthood has begun a quiet campaign to ensure that birth control is counted among the free preventive services that health insurers must cover under the Affordable Care Act.
Birth control barely came up in the health care reform debate, brushed aside by the more heated debate over abortion language and coverage. But with numerous religious groups opposed to contraceptive use, this issue is all but certain to become a flash point as implementation moves forward. …
With little fanfare, Planned Parenthood has begun laying the groundwork for a birth control campaign that will ramp up in coming months. On The Pill Is Personal, a website launched in May to celebrate the pill’s 50th anniversary, the group is soliciting stories from birth control users. “In the coming weeks,” the site tells visitors, “federal officials will consider measures that will dramatically increase access. Share your story or comments about how the pill changed your life and how it can change others.”
The women’s stories may soon be used to lobby federal agencies on birth control’s importance.
“This needs to be based on science and medical evidence, but … it is also really important to hear the stories of how women view birth control, the health impact and the affordability issue,” Rubiner said.
This exemplifies what Nancy Pelosi meant when she said that we’d have to pass ObamaCare to find out what’s in it. My God, it’s full of Pills!
Is the Pill preventive, in the sense meant when preventive medicine got debated during ObamaCare? Not at all. Democrats specifically called out early diagnosis of diseases such as diabetes to argue that ObamaCare would be an overall cost saver. A subsequent CBO analysis showed that argument to be a fallacy, but that didn’t stop them from making it repeatedly and consistently during the debate. That never included an explicit argument that lowering the birth rate would be an overall cost-saver, or that it was a legitimate government interest to suppress the birth rate. (The Social Security crisis actually argues that the government should incentivize higher birth rates in order to keep the Ponzi scheme afloat.)
On top of that, the entire idea of mandates is why the insurance companies have so many problems as it is. Imposing mandates for supplying the Pill to women for free will add billions of dollars of new costs onto insurers at a time when ObamaCare threatens to swamp the industry in red ink already. Furthermore, it is entirely elective, just like nose jobs and Lasix. The actual preventive measure to avoid pregnancy is abstinence, which costs nothing to anyone. If women choose to be sexually active without desiring pregnancy, then they should shoulder the responsibility and costs of that decision themselves, not shove them off to everyone else.
What do you think? Should women get the Pill for free? Take the poll:










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 4:02 PM
What really is there to “teach” about contraception?
I mean, geez. Read that instructions. It’s not all that damned difficult.
It’s marginally more advanced than taking a Flintstone vitamin.
If you’re too stupid to read the directions, you’re probably not going to take the pill every day, you’re not going to make sure the boyfriend wears the rubbery thing, you’re not going to insert the sponge, etc.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 4:06 PM
I honestly wouldn’t go that far either. I’d agree that it’s more likely the case but I don’t like this as a generality and when taken with that specific reference (in regards to abortion) it’s a far less “punishment” even with the worst parents.
Sure, but if they already have a baby, it seems easier to teach the latter, at least in the sense that they’re more likely to be open to learning. Whereas before pregnancy, they’re less likely to listen. Teens already consider themselves invincible. Add in sex, specifically for the irresponsible ones, and it’s really not all that surprising how few pay attention.
Eh. What’s the line? If you can’t be a good example be a horrible warning? For some people, being the “punished” child is precisely what they need to stay on the straight and narrow.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:10 PM
Abstinence is great. It is a tough sell though. Mass media and horny teen boys are out to take advantage of any chance a girl gives them.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Without bothering to look at statistics, I’d wager that unmarried teen moms are much more likely to have daughters who become unmarried teen moms. I’d guess it is by a factor of more than 3x.
Arguably, you can teach a teen how to be a mom. However, it is more efficient for society to teach them to become adults and then let them figure out parenthood after they’ve first learned to take care of themselves.
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 4:17 PM
There is always Islam. Pregnant without a husband?
“Where’s my favorite stone?….its around here some where….”
BobMbx on June 1, 2010 at 4:18 PM
dedalus on June 1, 2010 at 4:11 PM
Agree but I think this whole “education” thing is a red herring put out by PP to distract from the fact that contraception as a whole is a complete failure.
“Just give us more money to educate”.
Teenage pregnancy rates exploded once sex ed, contraception and abortion became readily available because at the same time, the popular culture started teaching children that sex is without risk and that if they aren’t doing it, they are hopeless losers.
NoDonkey on June 1, 2010 at 4:22 PM
I wouldn’t make you look it up. I believe I’ve read something similar myself. I’m not sure it’s as high as you state there, but we can both agree that they are more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy.
Maybe so, but there’s no proof of this. One stat on divorce showed that those who are the children of remarried parents are more likely themselves to be divorced, in part because they saw the effects of divorce and saw their parents move on from it. I believe that protecting individuals from their own mistakes can have similar problems for similar reasons.
So much of what you’re talking about has the effect of insulating irresponsible people from their own actions rather than helping them connect real consequences to their actions. I think the latter would actually be more effective at getting them to behave responsibly.
We’re also doing the former and don’t appear to be having much success.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 4:38 PM
Of course it is! It’s just that they wouldn’t tell you the way to cut costs was, first we’ll kill babies, then we’ll kill old people. Look at all the money we’re going to save!
oldleprechaun on June 1, 2010 at 4:49 PM
There’s nothing preventative about it. However, the Pill (some variants of it) are used to treat diseases, like endomitriosis.
kerncon on June 1, 2010 at 4:51 PM
Get bent, PP. The only ‘entitlement’ there should be with relation to birth control should be getting your tubes tied. It’s a one-time expense and the most effective method there is.
Dark-Star on June 1, 2010 at 4:54 PM
Aside from abstinence you mean.
My sister had hers tied over eight years ago and just gave birth a few weeks ago. Luckily the baby was healthy.
Esthier on June 1, 2010 at 5:03 PM
And that’s what’s wrong with you.
tom on June 1, 2010 at 5:49 PM
I don’t know about free, but why not cover contraceptive pills on the same basis as, say, allergy medicine? Allergy medicine is “elective” in that you can choose to just sniffle your way through half the year, but it’s generally covered (with a copay). Some insurance companies will cover birth control pills similarly, but quite a few that I’ve encountered won’t, unless your doctor pulls some shenanigans where a specific brand is prescribed for a different purpose, like for alleviating acne.
Mynuet on June 1, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Hey, this might sound harsh, but if it means less liberal, brian washed Obamazombies at the polls, let them have it…after a few decades there will be a whole lot less welfare recipients sucking on the tit of the American pig…
lsutiger on June 1, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2