Birth-Control as Preventive Medicine

     Those who would upend Roe v. Wade— and we are closer to that than at any time since the Court ruled — sending raped and other women with untenable pregnancies and who, for financial and other reasons cannot travel…sending them panicked scurrying to grasp their nearest coat hanger, many of them, would also happily ditch Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, that guaranteed women access to birth control. The issues surrounding birth control are not simply ethical and legal, however. Birth control, argues obstetrician-gynecologist Vanessa Cullins, is  an economic issue and should be covered under all standard medical plans.

     She’s right.

     Dr. Cullins says that “our health care system could save billions — and improve the health of women and families — by placing birth control within every woman’s reach.” She argued 

          . “Insurers continue to charge fees that make it difficult, sometimes impossible, for women to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Some plans charge a $1,500 deductible and upfront charges for specific contraceptive choices. An IUD, within health plans, can cost an up-front $1,200.

          . A third of women voters “have struggled to pay for prescription birth control…” and, as a result, use it inconsistently. This is a prime reason why the United States has the rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions it has.

          . Just under half the pregnancies in our country are unplanned. And yet, Dr. Cullins points out, “as the proportion of unmarried women at risk of unintended pregnancy who [use] contraception [increases] the abortion rate for the same group” between 1982 and 2002 “fell to 34 per 1,000 women from 50 per 1,000….”

          . Women with unintended pregnancies are less likely to receive “timely prenatal care, putting infants at greater risk” ad result, often, “in more costly deliveries.”

          . Teen mothers are “less likely to graduate from high school or attain an equivalency diploma.”

          . Teen mothers are less likely to earn taxable income (and so far less often contribute to state and federal governments) and are far more likely to require federal aid.

    The Institute of Medicine reported reviewing the gamut of women’s health services “and will advise the federal government on which ones should qualify as preventive health care” under the Affordable Care Act.

     The Institute could and should view birth control as preventative medicine. 

     The forces arrayed against women’s health, as we have seen all our lives and most particularly in so  many state legislatures will continue to undermine women and common sense.  The anti-choice lobbies and organizations and legislators are, most of them, as anti-contraception as they are choice. You can refuse to believe that, but if you do you doubt at the peril of your loved ones and your bank account.

     Ask yourselves:  have any of those who would eliminate abortion-choice and contraception ever shown the slightest inclination to support children and women in need, the working and non-working middle-class and poor?