A leading medical advisory panel recommended on Tuesday that all insurers be required to cover contraceptives for women free of charge as one of several preventive services under the new health care law.
Administration officials, who say they hope to act on the recommendations by Aug. 1, are receptive to the idea of removing cost as a barrier to birth control — a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.
But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health. Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections.
Why does the Catholic Church get to dictate national policy? If we're grandstanding about sharia law, how about we put Papal law under the same category?
In addition to contraceptive services for women, the panel recommended that the government require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breastfeeding, including the free rental of breast pumps.
The panel also said all insurers should be required to cover screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.
Defending its recommendations on contraceptive coverage, the panel said that nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Thus, it said, greater use of contraception would reduce the rates of unintended pregnancy, teenage pregnancy and abortion.
Gee, ya think? Of course the objections of thd denizens of wingnuttia to contraception have nothing to do with babies or life and everything to do with punishing the dirty sluts living in poverty. Check out these comments that were posted on MSNBC.com's article yesterday:
"Here is a birth controll method that will work:
•No welfare after the first child.
•No welfare after 2 years lifetime.
"I don't understand why birth control is a cost that needs to be covered by the government. People don't choose to get sick, you can choose to have unpredicted sex and get pregnant. I know you don't choose to get pregnant but it turns out if you don't have sex you will get pregnant 0% of the time, there isn't another medical condition that can boost that kind of prevention rate."
We already have a no-copay birth control---say NO
Maybe we shouldn't pay for welfare for people that can't adhere to simple birth control practice... see how many pregnancies happen when these girls (and guys) know that there will be no help for them in they are stupid enough to have unpredicted sex and get knocked up
And the single most idiotic comment of them all:
m of two minds about this. On the one hand, it's cheaper to pay for the birth control then for a pregnancy and/or abortion. On the other hand, I don't use birth control and see no reason why my premiums should go up to pay for everybody else's, when it's an expense they ought to be able to factor in. I think the definition of insurance is to pay for something unexpected. I have no problem with the yearly preventatives because in comparison those are lower in price and save more money in the long run.
I'll bet that last commenter has never had a blood transfusion, or a stent installed, or a coronary bypass, either. But I'll bet she's not sitting up at night grinding her teeth in rage about having to pay permiums to cover these procedures in other people.
What comes through in these comments (and the many others I haven't quoted) is the way contraception is linked with "sluttishness" ("Just say no") and the fundamental inconsistencies of wanting women who have sex to be punished by pregnancy, and at the same time have no help with said pregnancy. And it's this dichotomy, which we hear verbalized over and over again by those who profess to only be concerned with TEH BAYBEEEEZZZZZ, that shows them to less concerned with America's children than with thinking Eve wasn't punished enough for eating that apple.