Should the government require full birth control coverage?

Flickr (outcast104)

A recommendation by a nonpartisan group of experts that the government require health insurance companies to cover the full cost of birth control for women has prompted both praise and anger ahead of the Obama administration's decision on whether to adopt the recommendation.

A panel from the Institute of Medicine on Tuesday gave the Health and Human Services Department a list of eight services for women it said should qualify as preventive care, including contraception, HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers. Under President Obama's health care reform package, insurers are required to fully cover the cost of preventive care in most cases.

Reproductive rights groups hailed the recommendation as a positive step for women's health.

"Millions of women, especially young women, struggle every day to afford prescription birth control," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Today's recommendation brings us a step closer to ensuring that all newly insured women under the health care reform law will have access to prescription birth control without out-of-pocket expenses."

Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that "today's news marks one of the biggest advances for women's health in a generation."

Groups opposed to abortion rights, meanwhile, criticized the breadth of the recommendations.

The Family Research Council decried the recommendations for including emergency contraception (or the "morning after pill"). The group also points out there are no conscience protections for health care providers in insurance plan networks who object to prescribing such drugs.

"If HHS includes these mandates, the conscience rights of millions of Americans will be violated, including issuers of plans, providers who contract with such plans, and Americans who will pay for the cost of these services," Monahan said in a statement. "HHS should focus on items and services that prevent actual diseases, and not include controversial services just to placate the abortion industry."

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is also opposed to covering contraception as preventive care. Both the Conference and FRC have pressured HHS on the issue.

Abortion rights advocates have also taken action on the issue. NARAL worked with its affiliates to talk to students at 35 college campuses about no-cost birth control, and last month the group launched a Facebook application that enables a woman to determine how much money she could save if birth control were available without a copay.

Keenan warned that the Republican-led House could try to "derail the promise of no-cost birth control." The House has already voted twice -- once in February and once in April -- to cut family planning funding. (The bills died in the Senate.)

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement Tuesday that she would respond to the recommendations soon. She called the IOM report "historic."

"Before today, guidelines regarding women's health and preventive care did not exist," she said. "These recommendations are based on science and existing literature and I appreciate the hard work and thoughtful analysis that went into this report."

[jt92202]

I think they should come up with a stupidity pill and cover it on insurance plans because there are a lot of stupid and ingorant people out there!!!

I would say that most against birth contol being covered on heath plans are MEN! They don't need it so why should their tax dollars pay for it.... Don't you care about paying for the children that aren't yours? If all you care about is the money do some research and find out how much it costs to have a baby and raise it for 18 years on welfare, I think you may change your mind in the end!!

I do know there is no cure for stupidity and I also know some people can't open their minds enough to actually see the benifit of birth control!!

[tsigili]

If that's the only control that is acceptable to society, to stem the exponential growth in human populations, then so be it. Population growth has to be contained, one way or another.

Let the insurance companies hike rates to cover it. ObamaCare permits any rate hikes they want to make, anyway.

It is way less expensive than bringing untold numbers of unwanted children into this world.

[mylifetolive]

Requiring full birth control coverage from insurance companies is not going to do a thing. People who can afford insurance can afford bc.

Medicaid/welfare people are the ones who need full birth control provided. The government should go one step further, however, and REQUIRE PROOF OF BIRTH CONTROL (doctor's statement of bc shots) BEFORE WELFARE CAN BE DRAWN.

[agnesdeo]

Hey, the last time I checked that it costs only 50 cents for a condom in the gas station's bathroom. I don't think we should be forced to use of tax $$$ for others to enjoy their sexual desires.
Suggestion: Take a cold shower! Or, get a job and pay for your own condoms.

[valdo333]

"Funny how men never seem to be prepared nor do they give a damm if the girl gets pregnant. They do what their daddy did. Move to a different state."

overgeneralization is overgeneralized

[Social_Adjudicator]

Permanant birth control, yes. Regardless of age or how many children a person has. Especially in the case where children with birth defects or genetic diseases/disorders is likely. Also, in cases where a person knows that they simply will not be a good responsible Parent.

[nehicks]

Nobody really knows if they will be a good responsible parent until the child comes along. The space between the "idea" of having a child and actually having one to take care of is huge - just ask any teenager who "wanted someone to love" about that. I do believe that you should be required to prove you are financially capable of taking care of a child before being allowed to have one. It should not be a "right" to increase the world's population, but a privilege which must be earned.

[mylifetolive]

Insurance companies have been providing permanant bc for years. I know, I had my tubal in my 30's in th 80's. Insurance paid for it. However, they also add a clause that if you reverse this proceedure, they will not cover costs, nor cover the cost of an associated pregnancy. Fair, yes!

I personally know of an instance where a guy remarried after a vasectomy and his new, young wife wanted his child. He had the v reversed at his own cost, and they had a baby, at their own cost. The baby had multiply problems at an early birth, and the couple ended up having about a quarter million of hospital bills and no insurance coverage.

Insurance companies do provide permanant coverage, but they do mean permanant.

[moniquebahe]

Let me tell you one thing that the best health insurance plans has completely different set of meaning for different type of people. For those who are rich, the plan which can earn them more is best. However, those who are in the middle class have different ideas. They think that insurance plan is the best for which they will have to pay minimum premium. However, the poor person does not even know that what is health insurance? If you are one of them search online for "************ Insurance" and get smart about insurance.

[erasmus111]

Yes.

[ALBrainTrust13]

I know the Republicans support it for Democrats and vice versa.

[jeannettelj]

I say yes. At least 75% of our problems here in the USA and around the world are due to over population. Too many people trying to use systems originally created for half the amount. One day over population will destroy us all.

[roblearns]

No they aren't. In Europe they have negative population growth. In Russia, negative. In Japan, negative.

In the U.S. its slightly negative, if you remove immigration. Only with immigration are we still positive.

If you think we have budget problems now, wait till there is only one worker to pay for 2 retirees.

Negative population growth - we are closing to reaching that threshhold like most of the modern world. And wow, wait for the problems - declining property values, a busted social security system, a declining workforce to tax.

But - keep repeating your ignorance.

Now - in some countries overpopulation is a problem - most of Africa, for example.

[freeamerica31]

roblearns I agree totally for once.

[JohnnyFour]

I'm endlessly baffled by those who -- like many of the commenters here -- oppose abortion and yet also oppose contraception (i.e., the #1 tool for preventing abortions). The evidence is clear: Contraception prevents unintended pregnancies, which in turn reduces recourse to abortion. It's no accident that the countries with the best policies on contraception (i.e., no-cost birth control) are also the countries with the lowest abortion rates around, despite also having some of the most liberal abortion laws (e.g., the Netherlands). As for the countries that have ignored good family planning policies in favor of the kind of "just say no" approach favored by myopinionpal and NinthSt78, they have some of the highest abortion rates, despite having some of the most RESTRICTIVE abortion laws (e.g., Uganda).

[freeamerica31]

Great comments but why do the tax payers need to pay for it...your choice...you pay for it....or your boyfriend/husband/whoever but not tax payers.

[JohnnyFour]

Thanks for your comment. The question here is not whether the government should pay for birth control (CBS's headline is misleading) but, rather, whether health insurers should be required to cover birth conrol without additional costs to the holder of the plan.

With regard to taxpayer-funded contraception, I think there's a really strong argument in favor of government programs like Title X that provide no- and lo-cost birth control to women in need. There are millions of women, girls and families living in poverty in the U.S., and they are much more likely to have unwanted pregnancies b/c they can't afford birth control. Government programs that cover birth control give women like this the opportunity to have the babies they want and to avoid getting pregnant when the don't want to do so. And by doing that, they not only drastically reduce the abortion rate but also put these women in a much better position to complete their education, start/continue their careers, etc. In other words, there is a huge societal benefit, and the cost of programs like Title X is miniscule in comparison to a lot of other government spending. In fact, government-funded family planning is a big-time cost-saver because it prevents thousands of unwanted births that would be paid for by Medicaid (and paying for a birth is a lot more expensive than preventing an unwanted pregnancy in the first place).