The Anti-Contraception, Anti-Abortion Paradox

When I was a young adult and ready to start on the birth control pill, I found that its cost was not covered by my health insurance. Paying the retail price was onerous. It didn’t seem right that insurance wouldn’t cover contraception, though it did cover the cost of giving birth and possibly even abortion. It just didn’t make any sense.

Now, finally, the federal government is ready to rectify the situation, and make contraception more economically accessible to women and men by requiring health insurance to cover its cost.

According to this news story, the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, is recommending that health insurers be required to pay for contraception so that there is no cost to the consumer as part of “preventive health services.”

The story says:

I have never understood conservative political and religious groups’ opposition to funding contraception when they also oppose abortion rights. I do understand opposing abortion rights for religious reasons. But also opposing the availability of contraception? That’s just anti-woman.

I remember when, under President George W. Bush, the U.S. government de-funded the U.N. Population Fund and the U.S. Agency for International Development’s money to African NGOs that provided contraception to women in some of the poorest places on earth. Places where the absence of contraception meant more births of children whose parents could not afford to feed them, and where it meant that there would be more dangerous abortions and more women dying in childbirth.

At the time, in this article, New York Times op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof noted the paradox of a so-called pro-life administration making this decision.

As Vanessa Cullins, an obstetrician-gynecologist who is vice president for medical affairs at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, notes in this recent New York Times op-ed, affordable birth control decreases abortions and also improves health, since women with unplanned pregnancies are less likely to receive appropriate prenatal care and more likely to have low-birth-weight babies with medical complications.

The Obama administration says that it is likely to accept the medical panel’s recommendation, which would require many insurers to cover contraception starting in 2013.

As Rep. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said, “We are one step closer to saying goodbye to an era when simply being a woman is treated as a pre-existing condition.”

My only question is: What has taken so long?

Your Comments

The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, The Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not and will be deleted. Egregious commenters will be banned from commenting. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, our spam filter prevents most links and certain key words from being posted and the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.

Recommend this article

The Anti-Contraception, Anti-Abortion Paradox

Thank you!

This article has been sent!