Ladies Against Feminism is putting a completely different spin on the recent Supreme Court Hobby Lobby Decision by quoting Mercator Net. Their claim is that the main reason insurance companies cover birth control is because it’s cheaper than pay for a baby.
As quoted at Ladies Against Feminism –
If anyone thought the controversy over Obamacare’s contraceptive mandate finished with the Supreme Court’s decision it’s time to think again. Over the past months the battle has been framed as conscience rights versus contraceptive rights. Now that conscience has won the first fight on points, a second round could be fought over money.
According to health economists writing in the New York Times and The Incidental Economist blog, another troubling effect of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling is that insurers may lose money by having to cover the full cost of contraceptives, unless they raise premiums.
But don’t be fooled; it’s neither the insurance industry nor women’s health that these two experts are primarily defending, but contraception itself. Why? Because it’s more cost-effective than having a baby.
The disturbing thought process Ladies Against Feminism didn’t quote from Mercator Net Health – Health economics 101: contraceptives pay for themselves, usually, babies don’t
It’s true that Austin Frakt and Daniel Liebman are concerned that some insurers may face costs they can’t recoup and that premiums may rise a little. As for the health issue, Liebman adds this disclaimer to the beginning of his analysis: “Contraceptives’ primary benefit is the betterment of women’s health, not cost savings. Nothing below or in Austin’s Upshot post that links to this should imply otherwise!”And yet, as Nicole King pointed out last week, no-one who has thought about it for two minutes, let alone studied the contrary evidence, could believe that swallowing synthetic hormones or having foreign bodies in your reproductive tract for years on end is a way for women to get better health.
The economists’ cost-effectiveness argument is actually more believable. It’s crass, anti-woman and even inhumane, but it makes a certain kind of economic sense.
QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.