why free birth control…

why free birth control… March 5, 2012

… Let me just put this out there for you right away. Sex is not a medical emergency. Sex is not a medical emergency. Sex is not a medical emergency. I’ll put your mind at ease; you are not going to die from not having sex.

However, you will die without blood pressure medications or insulin. So I ask – birth control of all things?! I mean of all the drugs out there that people actually need to survive, why something as selective as birth control. No one is going to go into heart failure, kidney failure or diabetic shock without their Yaz. So what the hell, people! I seriously don’t know how anyone can legitimately think free contraception is a dandy idea and a good use of tax payer and government funds.

I could have asked every single one of my patients what drug they would love to have for free and I can guarantee not a single one of them would’ve said, “Hook me up with some free condoms and pills, please.” Has anyone in our administration ever even met a sick person or someone suffering from a chronic disease and asked them what medications they would like Uncle Sam to foot the bill for? It’s like our government is letting drunk frat boys be our policy makers because those are the only people I can think of who would actually benefit from girls having free unlimited supplies of contraception.

Birth control pills? Really? Truly? I can’t believe more people aren’t insulted or outraged by this. Do you know how much insulin is and diabetic testing supplies are? I do. My mom has diabetes and even with insurance her co-pay is a over a hundred dollars a month. I personally know a family who had to sell their home to afford cancer treatment for their child even though they were well insured. I’m sure they would have been enormously grateful and overjoyed for a few rounds of free chemo. People are actually trying to decide between groceries, their medications, or gasoline and Obama and his ilk’s main concern is making sure Slutty Sue doesn’t run out of condoms and birth control pills!

And everyone in support of this lunacy ignores the the glaring fact that pregnancy is not a disease and sex is not a medical emergency! They also can not articulate just why they support free contraception over, say, heart pills or affordable medical equipment like wheelchairs. The only clap trap I keep hearing is “I want to have lots of sex but no baby”. This is not a good enough reason for me to fund your promiscuity. And when exactly did sex or not having it become a medical emergency again?! I missed that lesson in nursing school. It seems to any normal thinking person that heart pills would be prioritized over the pill. It’s like I am surrounded by crazy people …

Let us not forget that people have been out of work for YEARS now and that a gallon of gas now costs more than a box of Franzia. It’s like we are a nation of magpies, easily distracted by the shiny rhetoric. “Look, those bad Catholics want to take away your God given right to pump your bodies full of abortifacients so you can have lots of consequence free sex. What is a nation without consequence free sex!” Never mind the economy over here or that creeping sharia over there. And people are actually falling for it.

Yeah… It’s really about population control isn’t it? Go ahead and admit it, because everyone already knows having sex is not a constitutional right. Although I would like to point out that gun ownership is, so where the happy hell is my free ammo, by God and my country?

You know what I think, this is about making sure poor people don’t breed because poor people are so unfit to be parents. Poor people can’t possible provide a decent quality of life for their children. But that sounds so nasty and elitist to admit, dare I say, a bit racist. It’s so much easier to make this about sex. But I just blew that argument out the water in the very first paragraph of this post.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Tanya

    “No one is going to go into heart failure, kidney failure or diabetic shock without their Yaz.”

    No, it’s while they’re ON their Yaz that sh*t happens. But add stroke, blood clots, heart failure, seizures, etc. and so forth.  Such fun. I can’t believe I don’t take them.  

  • mlenz9

    I’m one of those folks, Kat…congestive heart failure and type 2 diabetes…BUT, since I’m disabled, Medicare/Medicare D pay the lion’s share of the bill.   So, when the government provides Little Miss Roundheels with her free contraceptives, I imagine my Medicare D co-pays will have to go up to cover the bill.

  • maizie13

    Kat honey, what little Miss Roundheels(love that Mlenz9) doesn’t know, is that in every state in the Union, every county health department, EVERY ONE, offers FREE birth control of all kinds-pill, shots, implants, and condoms, for free(paid of course by us the taxpayer).  All you have to do is make an appoinment and get a pelvic exam.  Let me re-iterate so everyone understands-WE the taxpayer ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR BIRTH CONTROL AT LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENTS(caps for emphasis-not screaming)!  It’s already available for the taking!!
    I’m sorry but to me, this smacks of an attack on the Catholic Church.    

    • This is not quite true, for your information — I am “little Miss Roundheels” and have been getting birth control at Planned Parenthood and other public and private clinics since 1982, and I’ve always had to pay something for it. Believe me, if there were a way to get it totally FREE, I would have found it when I was a teen.

      • You sound like such a nice wholesome girl.  :-/

        • L.

          Who, me? Yes, I am — and I am raising my teenagers to be just like me. 😉
          And 5 bucks is cheap, but it isn’t free.

          • And having sex is not a medical emergency. I like to drink, should you pay for my Gin? Common sense, please. I know you have it. I’ve read your blog. 

          • L.

            Seriously — I now live in a country in which NEITHER contraception nor routine maternity care is covered (nor abortion, for that matter). Having sex is considered lifestyle choice and the participants bear the costs of the consequences of their actions. There is something to this way of thinking. Either both contraception and maternity care should be covered, or both shouldn’t be, since both are optional based on personal choices.

          • Marialouisa

             That’s also probably why Japan is going to be facing a massive population crisis – i.e. a complete lack of a young population and an exceedingly low birth rate.

          • Tim

            As long as its logically consistent, it’s for the best.

          • L.

            There’s a long list of reasons why Japan seems to be de-populating itself out of existence, but lack of maternity coverage isn’t a huge factor, since municipal governments usually offer subsidies to help cover costs. 

          • Karen

            Kat, I would pay for your gin! 

      • How much is your “something” because the student health centers at colleges and universities never charge the girls more than $5 bucks… admission to a night club or a frat party to cover the cost of the keg. Unless you are hot and could get in free. 

      • Patricia

         Sorry, L., but regardless of whether you pay a pittance or a hefty amount to pollute your body with gadgets & human pesticides…no one but you should be required to pay for that.  

        • L.

          Awrighty — if you don’t want to pay for my contraception, that’s fair enough, and I don’t want to pay higher premiums because of your maternity coverage. Having babies is a lifestyle choice. People can choose celibacy to avoid them entirely, or else they should be required to pay for maternity expenses out of pocket. Consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of a baby, and it’s quite possible to avoid the perfectly natural procreative outcome of sex with just a little self-discipline. Right? 

          • Actually, I had to provide additional maternity coverage to my already existing BC/BS ppo insurance. No one paid for my high risk pregnancy except me. 

          • L.

            Ironically, “Obamacare” will make most maternity coverage compulsory for insurers from 2014 — and I’m not sure I agree with that.

          • Karen

            So…covering birth control compulsorily is okay.  Covering maternity costs is not.  You can’t have it both ways.

          • L.

            As I said above, 
            I think it’s best for insurers to cover both contraception AND maternity care. But it’s logically consistent for them to exclude both, as they do here in Japan.

          • Tim

            What does logical consistency have to do with anything (I believe I already asked)?

            Moreover, many reasonable people do not equate maternity care with contraception (i.e. one has to do with the natural functions of the body while the other prevents such functions), so it wouldn’t be required to treat them similarly.

            But I think your comments demonstrate what will happen when a bureaucrat takes control of healthcare: pointless adherence to “logical consistency” rather than attention to what people need (or even want).

          • Tim

            I don’t see why you are taking maternity care hostage in order to get contraception.  Many things covered by insurance are the result of “personal choices” or can be traced back to such choices.  Does that mean you would prefer no health care to healthcare and no contraception?

            If that is the case, it’s disturbing that you would prefer that others suffer if you can’t get free contraception.

          • L.

            By the same token, I can also ask, shouldn’t you be sending your ramen to African famine victims, who surely need it more? As I said, I consider my contraception to be basic preventive healthcare, so I think it should be covered. And as I said in another reply, 
            I now live in a country in which NEITHER contraception nor routine maternity care is covered, which is logically consistent.

          • Tim

            As I said in another of my comments (which you should be reading as though it were the most important thing in the world) what are you getting at?

            I would be more concerned with treating actual health problems than trying to be “logically consistent.”  But I guess this is what happens when government takes over healthcare.

          • L.

            I think it’s best for insurers to cover both contraception AND maternity care, personally.  But I do understand the thinking behind covering neither, since sexual activity is a choice and pregnancy is a natural condition, not a disease. 

          • Tim

            Fair enough.  I disagree.

          • dang, i usually have to go onto yahoo to get into fights…The problem with your arugument, L, is that i am a catholic, married woman for 25 years this summer who found out 7 years into marriage that we are infertile. I have never used maternity services. my husband, my 11 adopted children, and myself, however, do reap the pollutants from your birthcontrol pills when we drink our water and any other effects. It doesn’t matter though, because you do have the right to contracept. I wish you would do it in a way that does not hurt my family…or your body. It really isn’t safe, and as far as sparring partners go, if we were talking about something else, we would probably be friends…Either way, the Catholic Church should never be required to pay for it. It goes against beliefs that go back 2000 years. That is legitimately a long-standing faith issue. We have the right to that belief.  and our 1st ammendment protects us from being discriminated on for our religious convictions. That is the issue. buy your own pills…i buy my water bottled.

          • L.

            Hey, I don’t take birth control pills. There are lots of other forms of contraception. (I personally favor sterilization but my insurer wouldn’t pay for it.)

          • RR

            There are plenty other drug toxins in drinking water besides those from birth control. Like high percentages of narcotics. If someone is that afraid of water from the faucet then I would recommend bottled water.

          • Jenn

            Maternity coverage is pitiful.  Our insurance company offered none and we still decided to have a child.  And do you know how we are handling the situation?  Paying for it ourselves.  Without whining or demanding that someone else needs to take responsibility for our situation.

          • L.

            Good. You’re exactly what I did, to get my contraception. And something tells me that if your coverage had included maternity, you would have been happy to avail yourself of it.

          • Megan Jeffery

             Since she would have been paying the premiums, and the insurance is offered as part of her compensation package THAT SHE WORKS FOR, and agreed to as part of her compensation or her husband does..then yes, of course she would expect to get what SHE PAID FOR (caps as emphasis, not yelling).

          • L.

            Exactly — and I want insurers to offer contraception, too, so that those of us who don’t want babies have another choice besides celibacy.

          • LSP

            Which is fine and reasonable, but those employers who have a moral /religious objection to birth control should not be forced to pay for it. Fine if people want insurance coverage for birth control, but don’t make Catholic and other religious employers participate in something they regard as immoral.

          • Patricia

             Dear L.,
            I am glad that you are fully aware that sexual relations can & often do result in the conception of a child…are you also aware that your “Plan B” & IUD can work as abortifacients…killing a newly conceived human life?   

          • L.

            Plan B acts to prevents ovulation and my IUD’s first line of defense was to kill sperm, but I am aware that there was a chance that both possibly affected my uterine lining so that in the unlikely event that conception did occur, the baby would not have been able to attach. I understand why to those opposed to abortion  in any form think that even the small chance of this happening is unacceptable, but as you can probably guess, I am not among those who feel this way. 

          • Seraphic

            Having babies is not a “lifestyle choice” but why we have sex in the first place. No babies, no economy. No babies, no culture.  No babies, no human race. 

            The idea that motherhood is merely “a lifestyle choice” has caused untold misery, including to pregnant women who have passed out on the subway because no-one would give up their seat. 

          • Seraphic

            And by “we have”, i mean “there is.” 

          • L.

            Not all of us have sex to have babies. Some of us do it to bond with our partners.
            Parenthood is indeed a lifestyle choice — and any woman not well enough to stand up on the subway should be lying down somewhere.

          • Jesse

             “any woman not well enough to stand up on the subway should be lying down somewhere” 
            Wow…  That’s all I can say.  js

          • L.

            If a woman is in danger of passing out just from standing, she must have some serious medical conditions. While it’s common courtesy to offer one’s seat, sometimes (as I found when I was pregnant myself) the seats are filled with very elderly people, or people who are sound asleep, or rude people who read their newspapers and totally ignore everyone else around them. The vast majority of pregnant women can ride the subway and stand for a while, without passing out.

  • I could have asked every single one of my patients what drug they would
    love to have for free and I can guarantee not a single one of them
    would’ve said, “Hook me up with some free condoms and pills, please.”

    I thought the same thing back when Planned Parenthood rushed to offer free “services”  in Louisiana in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, or in Haiti in the aftermath of the great earthquake. Really?  This is really where the survivors’ priorities are?  People are really thinking: “we’ve just had this terrible natural disaster, quick, get me to an abortionist”?

    The abortion/contraceptive lobby’s priorities, of course, are to finish what the natural disasters started, and to see to it that we have fewer black people in future.  Eugenics has always been the point, and it’s time the fellow travelers woke up and figured this out.

  • L.

    I would just like to make the point that “drunk frat boys” are not “the only people I can think of who would actually benefit from girls having free unlimited supplies of contraception.” Sex-loving women like me — who do NOT want babies — benefit, too. 

    • Tim

      We also need to discuss the benefits of not paying for your (or anybody else’s) contraception.

      By not paying, I have a few extra dollars to myself which I can use to buy something other than Ramen noodles.  Unfortunately, food is not as important so it is not free.

      • L.

        A dear friend’s father just died of lung cancer. He was a heavy smoker. I hate it that I have to pay higher premiums for lung cancer treatments caused by this person’s bad lifestyle choices (and I hate it even more that my friend lost his dad). My friend’s husband’s Viagra is fully covered by insurance — isn’t that a recreational drug, too? 
        I’ll tell you, though, that the benefit of paying for my contraception is that people like me don’t reproduce — and shouldn’t you be glad there are fewer of us in the world? 

        • So by your logic let’s just deny obese folks life saving insulin since it’s their fault they got diabetes by their poor lifestyle choices. Is this then, the birth control issue, just the start to deciding who gets medical treatment and who doesn’t it?  

          I am not even going to address your eugenics statement about being glad only certain people reproduce.

          • L.

            Well, no, I think my friend’s dad’s insurance was correct in paying for his cancer care, just as mine was correct in paying for my birth control, even though both the cause of his cancer and the purpose of my birth control are lifestyle choices with which some disagree. 
            And wait, it’s somehow a “eugenics statement” to say that people like me, who don’t want more kids, shouldn’t reproduce? I am not sure we have the same understanding of the definition of “eugenics” here.

          • Karen

            L, I can respect that you do not wish to have children. That’s your choice. However, we cannot compare pregnancy to a disease like cancer or diabetes.  I am sure there are women for whom pregnancy would be deadly.  There are medical conditions like that.  But for a diabetic, eating a dessert after lunch and dinner could be deadly; yet, the diabetics I have known have said, “I sure do like my desserts, too bad I can’t eat them right now.”  Why can’t we do the same with sex? It’s an appetite, just like a craving for sweets.  I won’t die if I don’t eat sweets.  Just like people don’t die if they don’t have sex.

            As for simply choosing to not have children, again, that is your choice and I respect it.  And unless you are working for a Catholic employer, then your insurance probably does cover it.  However, if you worked for a Catholic employer, you’d be a fool, theoretically speaking, to assume they would and should pay for something they object to on moral grounds.

          • Thank you Karen for wrangling the discussion back on course. Sex and pregnancy are not diseases or medical emergencies! Re-read the first paragraph, L, over and over till it sinks in. We can not compare sex and pregnancy to cancer and diabetes.  

          • L.

            Well, then why should pregnancy be covered? As I said, it’s not covered by my insurance in Japan precisely because it’s a natural elective condition and not a disease like cancer and diabetes. 

          • Tim

            Probably because insureds in the United States want coverage for maternity care.

            Contraception, on the other hand, is fairly cheap and so there is little reason for insurance to cover it or for prospective insureds to demand such coverage.

            By the way, Wikipedia says that Japan covers prenatal care.  Maybe you should let them know of their error.


          • L.

            Where exactly does it say it’s covered? Hospitals do offer maternity care, of course, but patients pay themselves — though they usually get subsidies from their local governments.

          • Tim

            My mistake.  I read that too quickly.  I took “healthcaresystem” to mean “health insurance system.”

          • Tim

            I stand by everything else I wrote

          • Karen

            Well, as to why Catholic institutions don’t see a problem with covering maternity costs but not contraception, goes back to that whole pesky, “pro life” stance.  Offering maternity coverage is the only reasonable, logical thing for a  pro-life employer to do.  Apparently Japan has taken logic a wee bit too far and decided not to be pro-life. 

          • L.

            Indeed, Japan is not a pro-life country — though contraception is quite rare here, except for condoms. Abortion has been legal since 1948, when the U.S. was still occupying the country — better help those GI’s get rid of their girlfriends’ unwanted babies!

          • Karen

            Suicide is still considered morally responsible in some situations, in Japan.  I don’t personally wish for the States to adopt Japanese mores, thank you very much.

          • L.

            I don’t think I ever said the U.S. should adopt Japanese mores. 

          • L.

            Actually, I have three kids — I just don’t want to produce anymore, from this particular body. And I doubt a Catholic church or school would ever put me on their payroll (though I was on the board of my kids’ Catholic school, go figure) — but when religious institutions employ those outside their faith to serve the public at large, I don’t think they should be exempt from public policies. If they wish to be so, they can employ/serve only those in their particular religious communities.

          • Karen

            So because a Catholic institution, like a Catholic orphanage or a church, say, will agree to hire anybody, without discrimination, the EMPLOYER has to change their ideals and the principles on which it was founded? It doesn’t work that way. If I were to go work for, say, a Hebrew school, and they have a rule about not bringing non-kosher food to eat in the teachers’ lounge, I can’t object and say they need to change that.  That is part of their faith, and what their leaders urge their followers to practice.

            So just because a Catholic employer may employ non-Catholics, does not mean the employer has to change their policies. It DOES mean that the person applying for the job needs to know exactly what is expected/required/provided.  It’s plain ridiculous to go work for a religious institution and then whine about how they’re not “serving your needs” when you knew darn well what they teach and what they’re willing to provide and support.

            Catholic employers are NOT public institutions. I attended a Catholic high school, it was a private school. So was my college. It was not endowed by the state, it was a private institution.

          • L.

            But Catholic hospitals are “for profit” now, not “for charity,” and they accept public funds (from Medicare, etc.). If an institution employs mostly people outside its religion and serves mostly people outside its religion, then it’s a de facto secular institution. 

            Perhaps the answer to this would be to return to TRUE Catholic universities/hospitals that don’t accept any public funds and stick to Church principles, and could therefore claim a bona fide religious exemption? 

          • Tim

            A better answer would be to allow religious institutions to decide what their beliefs are even if they employ those of another faith or no faith at all.

            It would be tragic if the government forced Catholic Hospitals not to accept Medicare in order to remain Catholic.  If such a thing were to happen, government would be the enemy, not the Church.

          • we have more than 600 catholic hospitals. Healthcare in this country would grind to a halt. Further, we have an enormous base of volunteerism. Yes, we could stop serving non-catholics, but its non=catholics who would suffer. Should we pull our kids out of public schools. Catholic churches and catholic parents save taxpayer…WE still HAVE to pay taxes…millions of dollars every year with educating our own…you can buy alot of condoms for that!!

          • The Catholic church chooses to employ the best possible candidates for a job, and i think its in everyone’s best interest that they do not exclude anyone. However, they don’t make anyone work for them. People who accept postitions accept what their employers offer. If the Catholic church were forcing people to work for them, then that would be an issue. Choice is for both sides…or it should be.

        • Tim

          No, I’m not glad.  Opinions aren’t hereditary, so I don’t know who you refer to as “us” when you say “shouldn’t you be glad there are fewer of us in the world?”

          I don’t mind paying more in premiums if that means saving lives, even if those people brought on their own poor health.  If there is anything I am glad about, its that people like your friend’s father can get treatment.

          And none of the things you cite are mandated by the government (as far as I know), they are just offered by insurance companies.  

          • L.

            As I pointed out in another reply here, “Obamacare” will also mandate maternity coverage from 2014.

          • Tim

            You didn’t mention maternity coverage in the comment to which I replied, and I’m not sure why it matters.

            And I’m not entirely sure what you are getting at with your comments.  That you are against maternity care?

          • Dr. Eric

             Our insurance carrier informed us that it will not be covering any more pregnancies, but it will pay for contraception.  Obamacare must not have sent the memo to our insurance carrier.

          • L.

            That will change in 2014 under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”).

          • Dr. Eric

             The one we had to pass to know what was in the bill?  I have a bridge to sell you.

        • RR

          Actually there are very few insurances that cover ED drugs. But one insurance that does cover it, military insurance. There is a cap on it so one can only get so many per month. I’m not trying to disregard military just stating what I’ve observed.

          The government is what’s wrong with our health care. That’s how increased cost and premiums started In the first place. Medicare mandates what the maximum coverage is for a product where in many cases is triple the cost of the item. For example: (these are not actual prices but just an example) say a walker costs a supplier $10, Medicare allows $60 to cover it, supplier then charges $120 which then $60 remain to pay the supplier. The supplier already has their guaranteed $60. So the remaining $60 the either paid by the patient (which would be most profitable) or it gets written off.

          Our country should look st other countries health care. Some have worse some have better.

          We do in fact pay for birth control for those on welfare. My state for example, welfare patients pay nothing for oral birth control or over the counter medications such as loratadine. Is that population control? Sure it is, but really I personnally am okay with that. It bothers me to no end that “slutty sue” or whomever can reap the benefits that I work very hard for her to get. Many times I feel that I should just give that person all the money in my pocket because they are going to get in anyway.

          Yes I am a birth control user, and have been since the age of 12 because of issues with my mentral cycle. Still on it today at the age of 33. I”ve used it being single and married. My choice and I totally understand that. I really don’t care if healthcare covers it some, completely or not at all. I will do what I can to afford it. But I still think its good to have an option.

          If its not about money but about principal then I guess that Catholic organizations shouldn’t carry health insruance anymore and maybe pay an monthly stipend for employees to get private healthcare. I have had a few jobs that was the only option. It sucks but its an option. The way healthcare is going that may be the way it goes anyway, or maybe not even get a stipend for it but get more for wages.

          It is sad that the line between church and state has been crossed. And that should have never happened. But what is wrong here in this discussion and many others that I have read is that people are being judged. Isn’t that was christianity is suppose to be against? I have read so much negative banter and posts with so much hate and despise. Its truly unfair for us all in all directions. Not everyone will be happen no matter which way this goes. But what I think people need to realize is that we are all peolple with feelings and choices. No one is perfect even those whom are devout Christians. The only judgement that matters is the one that matters most. So if thats God then it is, if not then its whatever one believes in. What happened to Gods will? I think we all need to take a step back and look to our neighbor and appreciate their opinions (whether we agree or not) and move on from our day. There are so many things in life that isn’t fair and there is very little anyone can do about it.

          I feel that educating a point is fine, but know that aggressive persuasion may not get the vote that is wanted. It saddens me when discussions like this become insulting to others and it just becomes a personnel argument back and forth.

          No matter what the outcome, always remember to “love thy neighbor” and I do not mean by “conventing thy neighbors wife”

  • Mary

    Excuse me,  but maybe these people who are in favor of the HHS Mandate would like to tell me why contraceptive coverage  should be free when my husband who is insulin dependent, has reached his limit for covered medications, and is now in what is called the “donut hole” and must pay out of pocket for his insulin until he gets into the next covered tier?  We are talking about life and death here and thousands of dollars my husband and I need to pay out of pocket.  How in the hell is this not more important than whining about the right to free contraceptives? Where are people’s priorities? Gosh this makes me so angry!

  • Iris Celeste

    Well, L, dear, what can I say, but I really don’t wish to pay for you to be the play thing of every idiot in town, who could care less about you and only want’s you for sex, because it obviously isn’t for your mind.

    Iris Celeste

    • L.

      Nah, I only have sex with my partner, with whom I’ve been together since 1985. Much as I do enjoy sex, I have to say, it’s far from the most important thing in our lives right now. And I’d be willing to bet there are plenty of things that your insurance covers that I don’t want to pay higher premiums for, either.
      Also, you might want to proofread what you write before you make fun of someone’s “mind” — or were you trying to be ironic?

  • Gayle

    I LOVE you, Cat!

  • Karen

    Oh my word. I have never seen the issue written about so clearly, so concisely, yet. “Sex is not a medical emergency.”  This is perfect.  I am reminded of a conversation I had with a good friend when I was engaged to the wonderful man who is now my husband. She sheepishly asked if we were abstaining from sex before marriage (she was at the time living with her future husband, but he hadn’t proposed yet). I said, “Uh…yes, of course.” She paused and said, “But how do you NOT?”  She meant, how do you NOT do something?  She knew that I had had sex with a former boyfriend, so how did I revert to somebody who, well, didn’t?

    Funny, but as I’ve matured I’ve found it’s actually easier, most of the time, to NOT do things sometimes.  It’s easier to NOT spend a wad at the store if I’m thinking about it. Because if I spend a wad I’ll regret it later. It’s easier to NOT start smoking then to regret it later when I can’t quit and am hacking up a lung.  It’s easier to NOT engage in premarital sex when I know I’ll regret it eventually.  I learned that the hard way.

    And to L, yes, you will regret it eventually. If not the next morning, then someday.  Maybe not until you’re old and grey and realize that all those guys wanted was a quick lay and you  meant very little to them.  When you’re wishing that you had meant something more to somebody.  When I was having premarital sex, I justified it in so many ways: “The church is out of date.” “We’re engaged, we’re going to get married anyway, best to get into practice now.”  And yo, I bought my own damn contraception over the counter. I am lucky it worked, but it would have been better all around if I just, well, hadn’t needed it in the first place. 

    • L.

      Why is it that people assume that when I say I love sex, I therefore MUST have multiple sexual partners? I don’t — and I already AM old and gray, and am legally married to my partner. 

      • I’m glad you found someone. It gives me hope now that I’m turning grey. You know if you are legitimately having a problem affording birth control I can suggest natural family planning. It’s totally free and more effective, when closely followed, than any nasty pill.  Just throwing that out there.    

        • L.

          Not all birth control is the pill. 

          • Dr. Eric

             Oooooh, ahhhhh!  A synthetic barrier.  Might as well rub yourself on an inflatable dummy.

            No thanks, human contact is much better.

          • L.

            Dr. Eric, not all birth control is condoms.

          • Dr. Eric

             Condoms are not the only synthetic barrier.

          • L.

            If you think having sex with a woman using an IUD/diaphragm really is exactly the same  rub oneself on an inflatable dummy, then I would say you have a warped idea of what sex is like. But since you would undoubtedly say the same about me, I guess that’s only fair.

          • Fine, then. NFP is also more effective than condoms, creams and rings. Or you can opt for keeping your legs closed. I’m just offering logical FREE alternatives where you don’t have to sacrifice your sex life and $5 a month for contraception . See, I’m not all evil and contradictory. 

            Unless of course this isn’t really about birth control… which I highly suspect it isn’t.

          • L.

            My highly effective IUD cost a few hundred dollars, my diaphragms a little less and my Plan B for back-up was over-the-counter, non-prescription. I had to pay for all of it out of pocket, even though I consider contraception to be basic preventive healthcare. 

            I wanted a tubal ligation but couldn’t afford it, and do wish I had been able to get one ten years ago. So yes, it is in fact about wishing that birth control had been covered by my insurance.

      • Karen

        I apologize.  I made a hasty judgement, and I am embarassed.  I hope you can forgive me.

        • L.

          Sure, we all make assumptions and presumptions in blog comments.  But blogs give us the chance to “meet” people with whom we might not cross paths in the real world.

  • +JMJ+ @TotusTuusFamily

    so where the happy hell is my free ammo, – favorite line. Sharing.

  • Candylandwv

    Love this and wanted to share on FB but I do take exception to, “Slutty Sue” without the inclusion of Man-whore Melvin or maybe Promiscuous Paul. There are too many feminists who would latch onto that and the entire, brilliant message would be lost. Their’s are the sensibilities we are trying to capture and their’s the hearts we are seeking to change, are they not??? That being said, “where the happy hell is my free ammo?” is a line worth repeating!!! Too funny!

    • L.

      As a matter of fact, I am a feminist and I did latch onto the “Slutty Sue” bit on Facebook earlier. I am “Slutty Sue,” if indeed, as this article implies,  a woman who enjoys sex in the context of marriage is “slutty” if she uses contraception.

      • A women who enjoys sex in the context of marriage should not be using contraception and instead be practicing natural family planning. 

        • L.

          Awright, I use contraception, so that means I must be “Slutty Sue.” Because, of course, it’s the “contraceptive mentality” that makes me a “slut,” no matter how long I’ve been with the same partner. 

          • Tim

            Don’t be so hard on yourself.

          • L.

            It was actually sarcasm — but believe me, I’ve been called a lot worse things than “slut” in my life!

          • Tim

            I don’t believe it!

            BTW: Is there a reason you keep saying “awright”?  Not using an “l”, coupled with the fact that you are from Japan, is setting off my “Politically Incorrect sensors”.

            Normally I wouldn’t care if you were being insensitive, but we just initiated the New Civility 2.0 here in the United States, and I’m legally required to go ape-sh*t if you were being politically incorrect.

          • L.

            Ha, I didn’t even think of it as being possibly Japanese at all — it’s just one of those words I use a lot.  And in Japanese, it would sound closer to “aw light.”

    • I see what you’re saying. But I am an firm believer in being a straight shooter and calling things for what they are.  We’ve gotten in this mess by holding our tongues and not saying what we mean for fear of offending.  

  • Iris Celeste

    I feel guilty about being snarky in my previous post.  I apologize and I’m going to try to explain things to all those misguided women and I’ll do it without bringing up religion.  First, the blogger’s post was considering only those medications which are needed for preserving life.  While one may enjoy sex and feel one can’t live without it the truth is one can and lots of people do so.  It is not a life threatening condition to be celibate.  Second, all those women who think they have reached equality by behaving like men when it comes to promiscuous sexual practices are wrong.  Women are built to be mothers.  Whether one believes that was done by a Creator or evolution, it does not matter.  Since we are physiologically  built to be mothers, we are going to impart the sexual act with much more emotional attachment than a man.  That is an “evolutionary” benefit to the species if the act produced its ultimate purpose of procreation and a new life is created.  In that way the mother will take care of the child and the species will survive and continue.  Especially, since humans as a species have a very long developmental period before reaching adulthood.

    • L.

      “Contraception use” and “promiscuous” sometimes go hand in hand, but very often they don’t. 
      And I agree it’s not a life threatening condition to be celibate, which is why I said I understand why sometimes maternity care isn’t covered, since the condition results from an elective choice. 

      • RiotgearMD

        Since i’m sure you’ll be reading this:

        L, your argument this whole comment section has amounted to “obfuscate->win”

        It’s unfortunate that so many of these folks are getting trolled so hard, but that doesn’t change the fact that you’ve made absolutely no responses to the actual text, other than to identify yourself as someone that likes sex.

        • L.

          Am I troll? Is someone who passionately disagrees a troll by definition? I’m not anonymous — I include a link back to my own blog, on which I’ve linked to articles with my full name. (It’s not on my blog header just because I don’t want it to come up in Google searches, to protect my family), but I stand behind everything I’ve said here, all of which was in response to the actual blog post. 

          I consider my contraception to be preventive healthcare, as it helps me avoid the undesirable and expensive condition of an unwanted pregnancy — which is not a disease, but will be covered by most insurers from 2014.  

          No one ever died from acne, either, but I know lots of people whose healthcare covers dermatology. There will always be disagreement about what drugs /procedures are included in coverage.  

          But yes, what jumped out at me about the original post was in fact the sex part — the statement that contraception only benefits frat boys and sluts.  I wanted to make the point that there those of us out here who aren’t either, who consider our birth control to be a blessing.

  • Excellent, succinct argument, though i really hate that it has become the issue, when it is, in fact, a constitutional issue. Our very astute president is fully aware, as a constitutional law professor or student or whatever he was, that we do not change laws by constiutional ammendments, but by passing manadates or crazy laws and then having the court decide in favor of them. PRECIDENT changes laws…If we find in favor of his mandate and he keeps adding supreme court justices, obama can change our health care, constitution, culture…you name it, for the next, well, forever. By choosing women’s issues, he will probably win. Social media is all the funding he needs. He could just have easily made it gun control…its a right protected by the constitution. And if this passes, it may be the next issue…where’s my free ammo!! I don’t like a guy who thinks he is smarter than a 200 year old document…or a 2000 year old institution. I don’t like Obama…i may run on that slogan.

  • Lydiamcgrew

     What Kat says here about diabetes and so forth is so obviously sensible that I can’t help wondering: Can’t this be used as a winning strategy against this insane mandate? What if we had people with all manner of other diseases testifying before Congress about how much they pay for thei rmedication? Would common sense kick in at some point? “Oh, yeah, we can’t make all of this stuff ‘free’, so it’s pretty darned arbitrary to insist on birth control being ‘free’when there are so many more serious things.”

  • justamouse

    Did you see this exchange between Sebelius and Rep Tim Murphy? She’s says that the “reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.”

    Father Z had it posted a few days ago.


  • Brian A. Cook

    It is often claimed that contraceptive pills have other uses other than stopping pregnancies.  It is claimed that they can treat very serious gynecological problems, such as polysticic ovarian syndrome.   Can you address that?

    • Dianne

      it is my understanding that Catholic insurance will cover legitimate drugs to cover legitimate health issues that women may have, such as polysticic ovarian syndrome.  They do that now.  Obama is pretty much insisting on an all or nothing scenario, since the Catholic church would have to deny ALL insurance in order not to be forced to provide artificial birth control, sterilization, abortions, and the like.  When abortion or birth control is  NOT the intended outcome of taking care of a serious health issue, but a secondary side effect, the church looks at it differently.

    • GeekLady

      Horomonal BC is often prescribed for serious gynecological problems, but they only offer symptomatic relief instead of a cure for the disorder. It’s a pity, really. Hormonal BC and IVF have dried up a lot of scientific investigation into actual medical conditions.

    • LSP

      I have polycystic ovarian syndrome. 12 years ago, my doc was only interested in treating me one of two ways: the Pill to regulate my cycle or Chlomid to help me get pregnant. I didn’t want either one….I wanted to solve the underlying problem so that my body would function normally. I found another doctor who was willing to work with me to try other things (diabetes drugs like metformin sometimes help), and eventually wound up losing weight through a Christian weight loss program. The weight loss seemed to reverse my PCOS symptoms, and my cycle regulated and I went on to give birth to 5 children naturally. I agree with Geeklady who said that hormonal birth control only provides help with symptoms but does nothing for the underlying condition, and reliance upon it has suppressed research into truly useful ways of fixing such disorders. I can’t speak to other gynecological disorders, but i do think we rely way too much on the Pill. Fertility Awareness methods (Natural Family Planning) do a lot more to help with gynecological problems than the Pill does, since they look at what is actually going on in the woman’s body rather than just suppressing it.

  • Kitty

    Wait, did I miss something or did L admit to having three teens?  And as being grey?  Which means she’s past the age of getting pregnant?  Which means this is all just to fight and has nothing to do with her at all.  

    • L.

      I am gray, but not quite menopausal, and my teens don’t want to get pregnant, either. So yeah, I have a dog in this fight.

      • Chiefkilljoy22

        Ahh, so you’re a family of hooers… (Using the Lisa Lampanelli pronunciation of whores)

  • Mary

    L, are you aware that contraception can cause spontaneous abortions? It can prevent an already fertilized egg from implanting.  Are you aware that birth  control pills are linked to breast cancer and infertility issues? With all of  this breast beating by feminists you would think that they would be concerned about these things,

    • L.

      Since I really do not WANT a fertilized egg to implant, I have absolutely no problem with that. I do not take birth control pills, but I am quite enthusiastic about the forms of contraception I do use. And I realize not everyone shares my opinions.

  • Love you, love this blog — you ROCK!

  • Tcn

    Yep, and my second amendment rights say that the government better pony up for my little pink .38, too. Oh, so they won’t buy the handgun? Then to hell with their condoms, too.

  • Paige Deaner

    My mom has asthma and has to pay $200/mo for her asthma medication. Her insurance is crap (but she gets it free through her employer) and only covers generic, which none of this type of medication is. So she only takes it once a day instead of twice a day so she doesn’t have to pay $200 every month but rather every other month. Now, when I was unemployed (and still on ABC), and had no insurance I got a 3 month supply for $20. So tell me who has the bigger hardship for the bigger issue? This is utterly ridiculous when, as you say, so many people with actual life-threatening problems can’t afford health care, but people want free contraceptives? Last I checked every health center on every secular campus had straight up bowls full of condoms in them for free. 

    • Sosterbrock

      Paige, honey, you didn’t have insurance when you were receiving birth control… so yes tax dollars were spent to help you afford the contraceptive. When you make a crack at the campus bowls filled with condoms why didn’t you just take a few condoms out of the bowl instead of using a different contraceptive method? I am sorry to hear about your Mother, but perhap with chonic asthma running in the family you shouldn’t reproduce. Do you research as to why there is not a generic provided for her asthma meds. Don’t blame birth control. After all you use it.

      • Chiefkilljoy22

        Maybe all of you trashy, promiscuous, entitled, low class pieces of excrement are the ones who shouldn’t be procreating. I’m usually one of the first ones to tout the natural selection arguement, but I’d much rather perpetuate an athsmatic gene pool than the ones that are creating a literal Idiocracy in our country. Birth control should only be covered in cases that can be proven to provide actual healthcare benefits; not in instances where people feel that they are entitled to have consequence-free sex at someone elses expense. If you cannot afford your own birth control treatments and refuse to use condoms and other cost effective means of contraception, then maybe you would be wise to keep it in your pants rather than burdening the rest of us with your poor decisions to bump uglies just because you have no self control. And for that matter.. When did people lose the ability to masturbate and relieve themselves? It’s baffeling how much of a non-issue this entire topic is, and even more confounding how much attention it is receiving.

  • GeekLady

    This HHS mandate drives me out of my mind furious.

    I paid, out of my own pocket, over a thousand dollars on Avastin injections to treat wet macular degeneration so I didn’t go blind in my left eye. My (otherwise excellent) insurance didn’t cover the injections because the condition is extremely rare in young people – so rare that it has it’s own name (myopic degeneration) and no FDA approved therapies at all, even through it’s the Same Damn Thing.

    I ought to have regular retinal scans, which I don’t get because I can’t afford to drop $35 EVERY month on a specialist copay.

    And what is Obama worried about?

  • Anonymous

    Should health insurance cover prenatal care? It’s a sexual choice to decide to get pregnant most times out of ten. 

    • The_crescat

      This has already been discussed – maternity/prenatal care is typically an additional coverage the individual has to pay for out of pocket. Women pay more than men for thier insurance coverage. No gov’t entity or tax money is used for this purpose. The whole idea that birth control is preventative medicine is absurd since pregnancy is not a disease. It’s really not that complicated.
      The Crescat   

      • Guest-comment

        This is not accurate information. ALL of the insurance policies provided to me in the work place included maternity/prenatal care, and my insurance did NOT cost more than that of any male coworker. If you don’t have the experience to get your information right, then please, do some research before tossing our imagined ‘facts.’

        • I am a nurse. How much more experience would you like me to have? Perhaps your research needs to be re-examined before calling someone’s argument deficient.

  • doughboy

    best post of the week!

  • Megan Jeffery

    Love this. You hit every. single. nail!

  • Riotgearmd

    There are two things going on in the current debate that aren’t being addressed in national media. First, as stated above, we do not have a right to sex. Just ask any Jr. high school male. It’s amusing, but not trivial. We have a right to an attorney if arrested, and the state will provide one for us if we cannot afford it. It is in the second part of the last sentence where the distinction is most pertinent. 

    Secondly, the term “birth control” has been conflated with birth control pills, implants, and all other drug-based forms of birth control. This conflation is problematic because the term is used in this way “American women need access to their medicative birth control”. The speaker is arguing: Americans need access to medication; Birth control is medication: Americans need access to Birth control.Since birth control, In Reality, refers to all forms of birth control, we really are being sold the idea that Americans need access sex, and not access to medication (as there are other medications for each and every problem treated with birth control medication). As Catholics, it is not our interest in keeping anyone from their own devices. We will neither push for the abolition of lies nor the abolition of condoms. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be forced to violate our consciences (eg. paying for someone to have an abortion (which medicative birth control does indeed do)) just because they lead us in a direction contrary to contemporary culture.

  • Guest-comment

    Butt.. we might be victims of over population – depletion of essential resources such as water; poorly distributed wealth and necessities and resulting poverty, famine, and related crime.
    The issue is partly about individual choice to control population or defer having children to a time when a woman is mature enough to parent, as well as financial able to provide for a child.
    It isn’t about whether we can live or die without sex. Most people won’t deny a basic, natural need and will still have sex even without contraceptives; thus, contraception should be available if for nothing else – to protect children from premature and inadequate nurturing and parenting. Whether they ‘should’ be in your opinion – more mature and self disciplined – isn’t what they ‘will’ be.
    There are women who don’t have the means or the information to know how to plan and prepare for a family, and since insurance companies are printing that it’s cheaper to provide free birth control than it is to cover the costs of unplanned births – it isn’t about YOU PAYING for someone’s birth control; it’s about insurance companies paying less for birth control than for unplanned pregnancies and births.

  • Ltlal75

    It is A Brave New World

  • V.

    Would you rather your tax dollars pay for ‘Slutty Sue’s” 14 illegitimate children instead? 

  • No_thanks

    If your whoring won’t even pay for the birth control maybe you’re in the wrong line of work

  • Sosterbrock

    I’ve read ALL the
    arguments… I believe birth control should be free and accessible to all
    women. While I agree sex is not a medical emergency it is however practiced
    quite often. The United States is a very conservative country compared to
    European countries. We don’t like to discuss sex, only the negative outcomes of
    the act. Which in my opinion gives the act of sex a poor image. Let’s not
    neglect the positive outcomes that intimate relations bring between two people-
    having the ability to procreate, strengthening a bond in a monogamous
    relationship, and allowing a healthy satisfaction for mental and physical
    health. With free birth control methods women and men will no longer abuse the
    act of sex. Eliminating a risk and the “danger” so to speak, from the equation
    isn’t as appealing as it once was.

    I understand the
    argument of not considering birth control as important as medications that
    function in daily health maintenance. My argument with free birth control is
    that women who do not consider procreation a priority are not brining other
    human beings into the world with a potential of health problems therefore
    saving the insurance companies and the insured’s millions in premium dollars.

    Birth control will
    not be forced on any person unwilling to participate. It will be free and
    accessible to those women to accept this healthy lifestyle.

    In the article why
    free birth control by the Crescat posted on March 5, 2012, the author
    touches on the subject of breeding between poor people. This is not my
    intention at all. Instead when I discussed the U.S. being a very conservative
    country it is also implied that people are not receiving the best education
    with regards to sex and therefore not choosing a responsible lifestyle.

    To briefly touch on the matter of abortion,
    birth control will eliminate a large percentage of the illegitimate pregnancies
    that occur as a result from unprotected sex. Condoms are not very reliable and
    birth control is the solution.

  • lisaspitzer

    Yazbirthcontrolpillshelpline.com is helpling women, mothers and daughters with complications for Yaz, yasmin and Ocella. Free birth control pills is one thing but dangerous drugs harming young women is another thing. We can give these out but the FDA needs to monitor these drugs and protect our young women. A stroke, Heart attack, blood clot, or pulmonary embolism or even death is a big price to pay for this freedom

  • Lucy

    Oh dear. This legislation is SO not about the economy! It’s progress toward eliminating the need for abortions- and that is undeniably good. Your post expresses a counterproductive attitude. Its backward.