Love|Updated:

Mo Contraception Control, Mo Problems [Sex in the News]

[cchealthguru zone=’atf’]

Conservatives claim to love one thing more than anything else. And that’s cutting the size of government.

Yes, they want fewer taxes and less government spending. But recently it seems they also want to control contraception and other rights that affect women’s control over their reproductive systems. Unfortunately for those trying to make both these things happen is that they’re mutually exclusive. Limiting women’s reproductive rights is cancelling out the previous goal of reducing costs.

First off, there’s Medicaid. In 2006 it cost state and federal government $11-billion dollars to cover the cost of treatment and delivery of unintended pregnancies. It only costs $39 a year per female employee for companies who cover birth control—saving $9,000 per female employee over a two-year period.

It’s much cheaper to cover the costs of contraception, especially when paired with family planning services. It’s estimated these measures cut $19-billion in medical costs each year—while reducing the need for abortions (hey, Republicans! isn’t that what you want?)

The answers are really all there. As with many other aspects of healthcare, prevention is key, and most often the most affordable option. Giving women the right to determine their own reproductive rights would increase earning potential for women and could reduce strains on other social services.

What do you think? Do the numbers show it’s time to take a different approach?

Leah is so close to finishing her Bachelor of Journalism at Ryerson University in Toronto. When she’s not working on the Ryerson Review of Journalism she’s baking tasty cupcakes and hunting for a job (hopefully that pays). Follow her @Elleandbee

    Comments

    Comments

    1. Jess says:

      hey good article, but you write "first off" without giving more than one example of how limiting rights are increasing costs. also, even if we continue to give women numerous options for prevention, it is up to the women themselves to take it. so are you arguing that 2006 didn't have as many options and therefore cost the government billions of dollars? loved the intro but got lost in the middle, sorry!

    2. Danielle says:

      This article is silly and completely one-sided, berating the party you don't personally believe in. Not mandating organizations and companies to provide contraception doesn't limit women's rights. If you know you are going to be sexually active and cannot to pay for contraception or cannot get yourself to a free clinic, it's not wise to work for, say a Catholic organization when they're very clear on their beliefs toward contraception. No one WANTS people to get abortions or have unplanned pregnancies, but it's up to people to take responsibilities for their own reproduction, not demand the government provide with you with free contraception.

      1. alienredqueen says:

        Yet the government has mandated in 15 states that insurance companies who provide for reproductive health MUST cover fertility treatments as well… Is that okay? The bottom line is, she's right and it's common sense that paying for birth control will cost everyone less than paying for either a pregnancy OR an abortion. So that's a second reason the "why should I pay for something I don't agree with" argument holds no water. (The first being that every day your tax money is probably put to use in at least a dozen ways that you would not agree with!)

      2. Danielle says:

        No, it's not okay that they MUST cover fertility treatments either. I agree that tax dollars are being used incorrectly, and we shouldn't have to pay for things we don't agree with. Our whole tax system needs to be reconstructed with much more transparency in its allocation.

        I'm not arguing that contraception itself is a bad thing itself, but extending the power of the government in-so-far as to MANDATE that private companies provide services that breach their values is a scary slippery slope to decline.

      3. Kay says:

        "We shouldn't have to pay for things we don't agree with." You do realize that this is the most ridiculous argument ever, right? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things the government uses our tax dollars that I don't agree with or necessarily support or use.

        For example, I don't agree in a 10+ year war in Iraq, but that doesn't stop millions from being wasted every month. I don't agree with tax money going to Wall Street bailouts and the mortgage interest tax deduction, but it does.

        In addition, tax dollars are *NOT* going to cover birth control in this discussion. The government is advocating for private insurance companies to cover birth control the same way the cover other preventative prescriptions.

      4. Danielle says:

        Just because we currently live a system that requires taxes to go to things we don't want, doesn't mean it's RIGHT. I knew someone would bring up the classic war example. The fact that so much of our tax dollars goes to that is a whole different topic.

        I wasn't insinuating that tax dollars would go to contraception; I was responding to @Alienredqueen's assertion that lack of insurance covered contraception would lead to tax-covered abortions or maternity care.

        The bottom-line of this whole government-mandating-insurance-coverage-of-contraception is that the government should not be allowed to overstep its bounds insofar as to dictate that private organizations violate their religious beliefs.

      5. alienredqueen says:

        While it would be nice to only pay for things we "agree with" morally, Kay is correct. It's simply not a feasible way to run a government. Besides, how many people do you think would suddenly develop "moral issues" with a bunch of stuff to get out of paying as much money. And I still maintain that even for private insurance companies, it would be cheaper to cover a 20 dollar pack of pills than a whole 9 month pregnancy.

    3. DeBoh says:

      So since people are too stupid to not get pregnant I have to pay for their birth control…. If that's not a Nanny Government I don't know what is

    4. […] • Crazy fact: the more contraception control you have, the more problems you have (CollegeCandy) […]

    5. It’s much cheaper to cover the costs of contraception, especially when paired with family plannin

    6. Dean Chong says:

      Yes, they want fewer taxes and less government spending. But recently it seems they also want to control

    7. KarriOliv says:

      First off, there’s Medicaid. In 2006 it cost state and federal government $11-billion dollars to cover the cost of treatment and delivery of unintended pregnancies.

    • You Might Like