Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

BIRTH CONTROL: Debate boils down to basic fairness

Letter by Sophie DeWitt, Tacoma on March 8, 2012 at 5:18 pm with 67 Comments »
March 9, 2012 10:36 am

Re: “GOP senators fail to reverse birth control rule” (TNT, 3-1).

The defeat of the Blunt Amendment proves that, to most reasonable Americans, birth control is not an issue. If the amendment had passed, employers could choose to opt out of covering not only birth control but any health service in the Affordable Care Act they deemed to be immoral.

Contraception is basic health care, similar to other preventative medicine such as medication for heart disease. This debate boils down to an issue of basic fairness and equity. Contraception is used by 85 percent of women at some point in their lifetimes. Women of childbearing age pay 68 percent more for basic health care than men in the same age group because they must pay for birth control out of pocket.

It is women who are being victimized today. I absolutely agree with the Obama administration when it declares that “decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.”


Leave a comment Comments → 67
  1. And, we can all agree that The Obama Compromise, granting an exemption of Religious-based organizations from having to pay for birth control, does not prevent any women in The United States from getting insurance coverage for birth control, because it enable women to get their coverage for birth control directly from the insurance companies rather than the churches.

  2. philichi says:

    Sophie, Tootpaste is also a basic preventative medicine. should Obama care cover that too? It is about the same caost as the pill.

    If women are getting such a bad deal, how is it that they have survived this many years without Obama Care? Why do they live longer than men?

  3. philichi says:

    Muckibr, I can always count on you to be a jolly comrad and voice exactly as you are told by your esteemeded leader. Do you wear a special uniform and march around your living room to his picture? Do you play his speaches and feel something running down your leg?

  4. vickistired says:

    Well, morally I object to people who don’t take care of their bodies. So, perhaps I will choose not to use that little moral exception to justify not covering cholesterol medicine – because I think people with high cholesterol are simply fat and lazy, and responsible for their own health problems. For that matter, I don’t want to pay for drugs people have to take due to heart or lung problems from smoking. I think smoking is morally wrong. I also think drinking to excess is wrong, too – so any care required to repair damage to your liver – tough. I don’t want to pay for that, either.

    Oh and by the way – where do you get (philichi) that toothpaste is the same cost as the pill? I mean, I like to brush my teeth, but you must brush your teeth all the time if you’re going through $60 a month worth of toothpaste…..

  5. philichi says:

    vickistired Target and has the Pill for $9 per month, So does Wallmart. However, You may be right, I will have to throw in floss, and tooth brushes.

  6. vickistired says:

    Which pill? There is no “the pill.” And yes, if you have insurance, and you’re able to take one of the lower end generics – it might only cost you $9 a month. Or you can purchase the one and only pill which Walmart seems to offer at that price – if that’s the pill you are prescribed. Oh, right – we should let the prices at Walmart dictate which pill is right for our bodies, not our doctors.

    By your logic, since Walmart offers many of the aforementioned cholesterol, heart and other drugs also for $9, we certainly don’t need health insurance coverage for those, either.

  7. philichi says:

    vickistired Lets go with your number than. If women have to pay $60 per month for a cell phone which is the going rate, should some insurance scheeme pay for it too?

  8. old_benjamin says:

    The die was cast when guvment got into healthcare. Now, healthcare includes whatever the latest sob story demands. That old law of unintended consequences keeps coming back for its due. When you open pandora’s box, all sorts of things pop out, even people who can get into Georgetown law school but can’t manage their most basic personal relationships without Big Brother’s help.

    I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.
    – Thomas Jefferson

  9. Scottc51 says:

    I think birth control is a great idea. I like that it is available. I don’t believe that anyone wants to abolish it. There is no legislative proposal to eliminate birth control. If there was such a legislative effort, I would tell government to butt out.
    It is the Affordable Care Act (falsly named to fool the dull)which intrudes on all of us and extorts massive payments and further centralizes our economy to the end that it all comes out of Washington D.C.

  10. vickistired says:

    Philichi, ok – you win. Cause the totally relevant cellphone example was just so logical, it blew my mind. Why don’t we just agree that no employer is required to provide health care coverage, period. Every man and women for him or herself. If you can’t afford it – tough. That’s life, baby, only the strong survive. Yup, makes total sense. But why stop there? If you don’t have insurance – no health care, period. It’s simply too expensive. Drives up the costs of insurance for the rest of us that do have it, cause we’re responsible (and rich -but darn it, we deserve to be rich and we should get to keep every single penny we earned). Poor people are just a big suck on the economy anyways. Ooh, lets get rid of food stamps and welfare and social security and medicare and medicaid too. I really hate subsidizing anybody other than myself who needs food or medical care. Really gets my goat. The whole society and economy will be better when all these poor people just go away, and I don’t have to deal with them anymore. Send them to Walmart! That’s where they belong.

    Gosh, it’s fun to be a conservative, right wing jerk.

  11. philichi says:

    vickistired: no, concervatives are now stuck cleaning up the mess of well meaning liberals. Social security, Bankrupt, Medicare, Bankrupt, Fannie Mae, Bankrupt, Freddy Mac, bankrupt, Studant loans bankrupt. Ary you seeing a patern?

  12. vickistired says:

    Other than your inability to spell? Yes, and liberals have never had to clean up the messes of conservatives….Iraq or Afghanistan, anyone? War on drugs (that one was a particularly clear win now, wasn’t it?)? Oh – and if you want to talk about bankruptcy, let’s talk about it. I mean – Obama was president when all that mortgage craziness started, wasn’t he? Oh, wait….I think that was a different guy, what was his name? Yes, cleaning up his mess has been oh-so-much fun.

  13. mukibr? I respectfully ask you a question. Outside of your employer, have you ever priced an insurance plan that you would have to pay for on your own? Just a plain ‘ol plan, no state medical, no community clinic, just a plain health plan? Lets remember that many of the people “claiming” religious freedom are also the same ones (if you look at their past posts) that want to eliminate Planned Parenthood, state funded medical plans and low cost clinics.

  14. commoncents says:

    are we comparing cell phones to medication now?

    As for Jefferson? – I have my own quote “Those that look to the government for special lottery priveleges in order to pay off their debts should not be talking about wasting the labors of the people.”

  15. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Vick- poor BHO, actually had to address some serious problems, not just social change. Bush and Reagan also walked into a recession, for Bush 9/11 also. They did not spend 3 years blaming everyone else for it, they tackled to problem.

    You are probably tired of from all the excuses.

  16. Frida, Fair is fair, right? I will happily answer your question when I read your answer to mine. Fair enough?

  17. old_benjamin says:

    vicki, it’s even more fun to be a conservative who picks the charities he wants to contribute to – like Warrent buffet does. Ooops, he supports Obama. Does that mean he’s a liberal? If so, why doesn’t he just send all his money to the government instead of his hand-picked charities? Same goes for Bill Gates.

  18. Pacman33 says:

    For too many on the left, access to free contraception is regarded as a fundamental human right, and “treatments” that pre-empt a potential pregnancy like Plan B and ella are morally indistinguishable from the treatments that combat a stroke or a tumor or H.I.V.

    At first I wasn’t sure, but I have since been convinced, leftist are literally not capable of this moral distinction. It seems, as if, they are simply not wired to accomplish such a task.

    I hope I can be unconvinced, but I’m not going to unrealistic about it and get my hopes up.

  19. Sonofwashington says:

    CT7 – Actually Bush walked into a surplus left by the Clinton administration and promplty gave it all away to his rich friends and the corporations. Then, after he started a war in Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 ( and he paid for off-budget), he gave the rich a tax cut so not only are we still paying billions for the wars he started, we have to suffer the reduced revenues ever more billions. Then there was Medicare part D, where the Republicans gave billions in guaranteed profits to Big Pharma and forbade the government to power to negotiate, thus costing us billions more. And thanks to Republican sponsored deregulation of Wall Street, banks, and real estate, our economy crashed so, as a final gesture, Mr. Bush gave us the big bail outs of Wall Street and the banks, with no strings attached.

    But it all works out great for the power elite; they still get big profits, big subsidies, and few taxes, while shoving the ever-growing tax burden on the backs of folks like you and me and the middle class who already struggling. It’s a beautiful thing.

  20. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Clinton surplus? So you are pulling for Newt?

    Bush gave us TARP. Lots of strings. It was a LOAN. We (maybe not you, but the 51% of fed taxpayers) made a profit on TARP.

    You must be confusing it with failed stimulus.

    And the Bush tax cuts favored the poor and middle class.

    Try and defend BHO with using ‘Bush’ or ‘rich’. Try some responsibility from your side of the aisle. Try having some pride yourself.

  21. “If women have to pay $60 per month for a cell phone which is the going rate, should some insurance scheeme pay for it too?”

    Cell phones aren’t necessary for health. Try again.

  22. “Bush 9/11 also. They did not spend 3 years blaming everyone else for it”

    Bzzzzt. Wrong. The Bush administration and their supporters spent the remaining seven years of his time in office blaming Clinton.

  23. “Clinton surplus? So you are pulling for Newt?”

    Bzzzzt. Wrong. The federal budgets are available online, and show that Newt and the GOP-controlled Congress spent MORE money than Clinton requested.

  24. LornaDoone says:

    philichi is in rare form today. Cell phones and toothpaste equated to birth control pills which could be used for other medical issues. Can a man get more child-like than that?

  25. LornaDoone says:

    Frida, aren’t you a member of the “Itsnoneofyourdamnedbusiness” Church, where I attend?

    I thought I saw you at Mass last Sunday. I think you were in the choir singing anything but hymns.


  26. Pacman33 says:

    Wouldn’t it be nice to be a leftist but not know any better. To be able to wander aimlessly through an alternative universe where our perception of reality, our opinions and delusions are all blended into one big mess.

    If we didn’t like something we could simply deny it and come up with something different to pretend it to be, instead. If an event happened to occur in the past that we’re not fond of, merely say it didn’t happen and say something else happened that sounds better. Why not? It’s not against the law. Besides one of the luxuries of being a leftist is, without the burden of a moral compass or principles, anything goes.

    A leftist can lie until blue in the face, and sleep just fine, especially when they came up with a really good lie to help advance a noble leftist cause, like adding yet another oppressive law or inventing a new brand/flavor of being a victim or expanding an existing group of self-defined victims.

    Ahh it’s fun to occasionally daydream.

  27. bobcat1a says:

    Let’s see now. If Clinton wasn’t responsible for the surplus, but Newt was, then it makes sense that Obama isn’t responsible for the deficits but Boehner is. Right, CT7?

  28. Sonofwashington says:

    Ah Pacman, you are so clever.
    But the sad truth is that the alternate reality is that built by FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, and the CATO foundations funded by billionaires to perpetrate a corporate-friendly agenda. They have created this utopian vision that if, we the people, just give our government over to corporate wisdom and allow them to operate unfettered in an “open market” the magic hand of the market will provide for all our needs and in the most efficient manner. Kind of a Karl-Marx-as-as-capitalist approach.

    The problem is that your rights and freedoms do not contribute a dime to profit centers but too often, add to cost centers. Hence, the highly efficient mega-corps do not really give a hoot about your health needs, your children’s education needs, your retirement, or whether or not your water is toxic and your kids can barely stand to breath the air. These are unimportant in the utopia that reveres profit and power above all else. The people and their prosperity are not even in the equation. In that framework, government is bad, corporatations are good, and you lose, both as a worker and a consumer.

    But hey, the conservative majority on the supreme court have figured out that this was the intent of our founders so our destiny is clear. Feudalism. Embrace it.

  29. Pac33 – I didn’t think it was possible to write three full paragraphs without saying anything.

  30. Hey Oldben – I can let this pass, you said:

    “The die was cast when guvment got into healthcare. Now, healthcare includes whatever the latest sob story demands.

    Aren’t you on Medicare? You going to give it up now?

  31. contraception is the same as “medication for heart disease”?

    I think if someone wants to avoid a pregnancy, they do it on their OWN dime.

  32. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Bc1- your logic is 1/2 right, but you ignore Harry and Nancy.

    As a lesson for the group (3rd grade level), Congress runs the purse of the nation. There are the House of Reps and Congress. Preaidents effect the actions of the majority of their party.

    Lesson complete.

    So, surplus = Newt. Deficit = Bush (9/11), Harry/Pelosi, BHO.

  33. Tootpaste is also a basic preventative medicine.

    I just use Beano to prevent the toots.

    But, if you are referring to toothpaste, please explain how it is equivalent to prescription only drugs.

  34. “Surplus = Newt”

    I’ll explain this one more time. V e r y s l o w l y. See if you can follow along.

    1. The Presidential budgets are available online. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

    2. They contain the budget request from the President, before Congress touches them.

    3. The US budgets are also available online. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/hist.html

    4. They contain the budgets as passed by Congress.

    5. A thinking person could compare the two budgets, which I did.

    6. The comparison showed two things:

    a. Clinton’s submitted budgets contained surpluses before Congress touched them
    b. The GOP-controlled Congress voted to spend more money than Clinton asked for.

  35. LornaDoone says:

    Reading philichi’s comparison of toothpaste and cell phones to a prescription drug reminds me to again support the legislation to require men to have a rectal exam and a cardiac stress test before getting ED medication. The required testing should be witnessed by a female government employee.

  36. Does the right really think they will win on social issues?

  37. As to the birth control issue I do not need any religious faith telling me what medical procedure, device or medication I can and cannot take. There is a separation of church and state. There is medical science.

    The churches run big medical practices which are totally secular except for the wandering chaplain in the hallways. The hospital takes in secular patients, has secular staff, takes secular dollars, pays large salaries to executives, who are not priests, rabbis or pastors.

    If the hospital do not want to dispense contraceptive devices to patients, they need to get out of the business of health care.

    When Al Smith and John Kennedy ran for the office of president, there was much concern whether both would become mouth pieces for the Vatican. John Kennedy gave a speech to counter act those bias citizens. Rick Santorum has blasted JFK for that speech. Rick was a toddler back then and shows he has no sense whatsoever of American history.

    Separation of church and state and religious freedom does not mean any faith gets to call the shots on my medical well being. If Rick does not want his wife to take birth control, then he has the absolute right to tell her so under the tenants of his faith- no mine or my family.

  38. Sonofwashington says:

    I like your last sentence, A.
    Rick can TELL his wife whether or not she can take birth control. Just echoes the male-female superiority/subordinancy notion that the conservatives, orthodox Christians, and misocgynists (Rush, et al) adhere to. They seem to be very threatened by intelligent, independent women.

  39. “The die was cast when guvment got into healthcare”

    Which of course it didn’t do.

  40. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Which of course they do. With Obamacare even more employers dropped their plans. Most of Anerica has their healthcare from govt


  41. Again I have to ask why conservatives lie so much?

  42. ct7 – linking wikipedia as a source demonstrates that there is at least one person who is editing wikipedia that agrees with you.

  43. concernedtacoma7 says:

    Prove it wrong then

  44. Prove it wrong?
    It’s your contention, it’s been called into question, your so called ‘proof’ is most definitely called into question, so the burden of proof remains yours.
    Unless of course you can’t prove it…….

  45. Pacman33 says:

    Like I said wouldn’t it be nice …..
    Could you imagine how easy life would be if it were possible to simply ignore blatant facts like the reality of Democrats inability to balance the budget despite having majorities for +30 years. Over 30 years, many of them with Dem presidents, and after all that time it isn’t until Republicans finally gain majorities, does the budget finally get balanced.

    How can it be so easy to dismiss such a corresponding phenomenon as a mere coincidence?

    Rational individuals know that it was Newt and the Republican congress that balanced the budget that resulted in a surplus IN SPITE on Clinton.

    “In 1994, many Americans viewed reducing the deficit as one of the most important public policy objectives. To that end, in that year’s Congressional election, Republicans campaigned against Clinton’s revenue choking tax increase and took control of both the Senate and the House. The Republican led Congress immediately engaged in a battle with President Clinton, because the President refused to sign the balanced budgets the Congress sent him. Finally, in 1995 the Republican Congress stood firm, and refused to send Clinton any budget that was not balanced.”


  46. philichi says:

    let me get this straight, Newt and the boys worked very hard to get Clinton to sign a balanced budget. He and his minions said that they were going to starve children. Finally the budget was balanced, partly because of the stock market going up and capital gains being paid and a congress that wanted to down size government. You want to give Clinton the credit?

    He is responsible for a lot of things in his term. However, mostly still on the blue dress.

  47. bobcat1a says:

    Finally I get it…Republican presidents are responsible for the good things that happen while they are in office plus the next year or so but none of the bad, and Democratic presidents are responsible for all of the bad things that happen while they are in office and none of the good things plus they are responsible for all of the bad things that happen for the first year or two of the following Republican president. Wow, that’s a great gig for the Republicans.

  48. LornaDoone says:

    “prove it wrong” LOL

    The moon is made of green cheese under a layer of rock and dust.

    Prove it wrong.

  49. concernedtacoma7 says:

    A bunch of heroes proved that false decades ago. You prove nothing, well, except the left is nothing but rhetoric.

    Facts are your enemy. Keep up the “hope and change”, because action, deeds, and truth are in the too hard to do column for progressives.

    Pathetic. You cannot even keep the same moniker.

  50. There is nothing to prove wrong when you have not sufficiently supported you assertion.

    I’ll help you….go back to your wikipedia entry go to the footnotes that support the assertion. Go to the cited source. (Of course, this assumes that your assertion was actually supported by a source within wikipedia).

  51. “except the left is nothing but rhetoric.”

    This thread alone proves that statement false and in fact proves the right is who is empty of all facts.

  52. You prove nothing, well, except the left is nothing but rhetoric.

    Facts are your enemy. Keep up the “hope and change”, because action, deeds, and truth are in the too hard to do column for progressives.

    Pathetic. You cannot even keep the same moniker.

    When you know you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

  53. LornaDoone says:

    “A bunch of heroes proved that false decades ago.”

    No one drilled deep beyond the surface of the moon. CT7, your comment base is sort of like your research. You don’t look past the top layer.

    As to monikers, you assert I’ve had more than one –

    “prove it”

  54. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Meanwhile, back to the topic; I think the letter-writer wasted a great deal of time and space by not simply starting and stopping at “birth control is not an issue.”

  55. LornaDoone says:

    Back to the actual topic:

    Selective editing left out the context of the statement:

    “The defeat of the Blunt Amendment proves that, to most reasonable Americans, birth control is not an issue. If the amendment had passed, employers could choose to opt out of covering not only birth control but any health service in the Affordable Care Act they deemed to be immoral.”

    Of course, taking the comment out of context was the intent.

  56. LornaDoone says:
  57. Vox_clamantis_in_deserto says:

    Repeating, for the benefit of the imperceptive:

    “… by not simply starting and stopping at “birth control is not an issue.””

    HTH… truly.

  58. LornaDoone says:

    Well, if you get half of the context, that’s better than none.

    My congrats!

  59. Half is an improvement.

  60. “when you’ve finished mastering yo-yo tricks, kindly return the other half of LD’s brain… especially that frontal lobe part. After all, it wasn’t very nice of you to take the front half, and it has proved no more useful to you than Larry.”

    When you can’t refute the message, attack the messenger.

  61. LornaDoone says:

    The point being made by the letter writer and dodged by the conservative is that birth control pills are the beginning of a slippery slope towards employers having the ability to decide what kind of health care people get

  62. wildcelticrose says:

    those who whine about paying for birth control (hey, I don’t want to pay for wars or corporate tax breaks but we don’t get to pick and choose) need to quit listening to Rush and take a look at fact.

    You pay MORE when women aren’t using birth control, either in the form of higher insurance rates because labor, delivery and well child care are way more expensive than birth control (and the cost of providing those services is passed on to us, get it?) or for welfare to raise those children who were not wanted/able to be afforded.

  63. You pay MORE when women aren’t using birth control, either in the form of higher insurance rates because labor, delivery and well child care are way more expensive than birth control (and the cost of providing those services is passed on to us, get it?) or for welfare to raise those children who were not wanted/able to be afforded.

    Which tends to support the conclusion that those who are against paying for for contraception are doing so solely from a morals stance that yearns for the good ol’ days when women were barefoot and pregnant.

    I guess these are the “good ol’ days. I decided to quote extensively as the criminalization of contraception went on much longer than I thought:

    March 2, 1873: Congress passes the Comstock Law, an anti-obscenity act that specifically lists contraceptives as obscene material and outlaws the dissemination of them via the postal service or interstate commerce. At the time, the United States is the only western nation to enact laws criminalizing birth control.

    August, 1914: Margaret Sanger coins the term “birth control” and dares to use the phrase in the June 1914 issue of The Woman Rebel. For this crime and others, Sanger is indicted for nine violations of the Comstock Law. Rather than face the charges, she flees the country to continue her work in England.

    1915 Anthony Comstock dies, but his anti-birth control laws remain entrenched.

    Oct.16, 1916: Sanger, with her sister and a friend, opens the first birth control clinic in America, in Brooklyn, New York. For the first time in American history, women can receive organized instruction in birth control.

    Oct. 26, 1916: After only 10 days, Sanger’s clinic is raided by the vice squad and shut down. The women are arrested and all the condoms and diaphragms at the clinic are confiscated.

    1918 The Crane decision, in the case against Sanger’s operation of the clinic, is the first legal ruling to allow birth control to be used for therapeutic purposes.

    1923 Margaret Sanger successfully opens the first legal birth control clinic in the U.S. with the stated intent of only using contraceptives for medical purposes, such as the prevention of life-threatening pregnancies and in accordance with the Crane decision.

    1930s During the Great Depression, companies eager to sell women contraceptives, but not permitted to by law, use the term “feminine hygiene” to market a wide array of over-the-counter products that are believed to have a contraceptive effect. One of the most popular products is the simple and cheap “Lysol douche,” and scores of women rely solely on this ineffective and dangerous method to prevent pregnancy.

    1950s Although the vast majority of doctors approve of birth control for the good of families, anti-birth control laws on the books in thirty states still prohibit or restrict the sale and advertisement of contraceptive devices. It is a felony in Massachusetts to “exhibit, sell, prescribe, provide, or give out information” about them. In Connecticut, it is a crime for a couple to use contraception.

    1961 It is still a crime to use birth control in Connecticut.

    1964 Despite general public approval for birth control, ghosts of the Comstock Laws linger. Eight states still prohibit the sale of contraceptives, and laws in Massachusetts and Connecticut still prevent the dissemination of information about birth control.

    1972 March 23: The U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Eisenstadt v. Baird that a state cannot stand in the way of distribution of birth control to a single person, strikes down Massachusetts law prohibiting the sale of contraceptives to unmarried women.


  64. Tonks765 says:

    Sophie’s original letter is absolutely to the point! Women do have an unfair burden in the matter of family planning if it’s not covered by health insurance, starting with a doctor’s visit and continuing with a monthly expense that many families can’t afford.

    Family planning is a choice that affects not only women’s own well-being but also that of their families and communities. Young women who have to give up their education for an unplanned pregnancy may be condemned to lasting poverty, trying to earn a living and pay for child care on a minimum wage. Mothers whose health is deteriorated by child-bearing may no longer be able to take care of their previous children. The burden of one more child would drive many families already living on the edge to homelessness. And unwanted children are often subject to deprivation and abuse, which they may take out on others and pass on to the next generation.

    For the kind of neighborhood/community/nation you want to live in, make sure all the children are wanted, with a good chance of love, health, and education for their life as future citizens.

  65. I read the original letter and was going to comment, but Tonks765 did it much more eloquently than I could hope to. I would only add that there are many women whose health would be jeopardized by a pregnancy, or who because of a health problem take a medication that has been proven to cause birth defects – or sometimes a medication in the more sinister class of “well we don’t really know if it is linked to birth defects because it just hasn’t been studied enough yet.” For women in this situation, birth control is medically necessary, and it should be between the patient and health care provider to choose the best form. When decided, it should be covered just as any other medication or procedure would be.

  66. Birth control and pregnancy should be treated like any other medical condition. If an insurance provider pays for asthma controller medicine to prevent asthma attacks, they should also pay for birth control. If they pay for heart attack surgery and after care, then they should pay for pregnancy and after care for that. Why should women be forced to pay for these things out of their own pocket? Why are women and their medical issues held to a different standard then men and their medical issues.

    If you cut contraceptive funding then you need to eliminate funding for male impotence. That would certainly cut down on more unwanted pregnancies.

  67. Birth control is basic health care, and many women take hormonal birth control for reasons other than to prevent pregnancy. I myself have been prescribed hormonal birth control twice now for two different medical conditions. If health insurance companies are covering prescription medications, why should birth control be left out? Why are the few prescriptions that most women need the ones not covered by insurance, even when they’re paying their share of the premiums?

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0