Uncle Sam gouges on birth control for college women
By MARY ANN SORRENTINO | September 12, 2007
![insideRSFertilityREV[1]](http://cache.thephoenix.com/secure/uploadedImages/The_Phoenix/News/This_Just_In/insideRSFertilityREV[1].jpg "insideRSFertilityREV[1]") |
Who would ever finger our federal government as the force responsible for thousands of unintended pregnancies on US campuses?
The federal Deficit Reduction Act — which went into effect in January — may do just that. It is forcing up the price of birth control pills for college women — to $30 to $50 a month, instead of $3 to $10 — this academic year through a convoluted formula that allows favored pharmaceutical companies to decide how they will use the act’s mandated state rebates.
Pharmaceutical company representatives say that deep campus discounts for contraceptives burden company profits. There’s no word yet on how much thousands of unintended pregnancies resulting from unaffordable birth control will cost the rest of us in perpetuity.
Female students traditionally have no health insurance or they may be covered under a parent’s plan, in which case they often pay out-of-pocket to protect their privacy. This means insurance companies will not pick up much of the new cost hike for birth control pills.
The popularity of oral contraceptives and their hormonal patch spin-offs is not new. These are the two most effective methods of birth control, second only to sterilization, which — because it is permanent — is not usually an option for young women wishing to have children in the future.
When purchasing such effective contraception was affordable for the average student, curbing unwanted pregnancies was achievable. Now, with birth control costs increasing as much as five-fold, the outlook for holding down the numbers of unintended and unwanted pregnancies is bleak.
But the current birth control roadblock becomes even more unconscionable in the nation’s current anti-choice climate, in which women who may actually become pregnant by mistake are afforded fewer options for dealing with such an event. As the abortion debate heats up amid presidential campaigns, politicians and red state fanatics coalesce to limit women’s reproductive rights. Even the “morning after pill” was withheld unreasonably for years, until very recently.
Already-born children get less federal respect than the “unborn.” This may be because the “unborn” don’t require a line in this nation’s current budget, where maternal and child welfare have been gutted. Uncle Sam will have to face the fact that the already-born eat, get sick, require clothing, education and housing, and that any society is weakened by women who are forced into motherhood and robbed of their dreams.
Not surprising, but disquieting, is the gender gap in public reactions to the campus contraception price-gouging.
Male “experts” reassure us that the new pill costs will not result in a rash of campus pregnancies. The women biologically vulnerable — patients and observers — describe the increased pregnancy risks as high, mighty, and terrifying.
A country where Medicare covers Viagra so that old bucks can remain sexually active long after most women care ought to have the resources to help people in their childbearing years responsibly plan pregnancies.
In W’s world, however, unaffordable birth control pills may become the “weapons of mass destruction” that we couldn’t find, until now.
Related:
Controlling birth, Hey, hey, we're the Monkees, Safe sex, duh, More 
- Controlling birth
Not surprisingly, I am searching for yet another birth control pill that doesn’t wreck my life.
- Hey, hey, we're the Monkees
The law of averages says if you put 100 monkeys in a room with 100 computers, they'll eventually write a workable national health-care bill. Apparently, that rule doesn't apply to 100 US senators.
- Safe sex, duh
A sharp-eyed reader caught an omission in one of Your Secret Admirer's previous columns.
- Californians show impressive grace under pressure
Many of us haven’t felt a hell of a lot of national pride over the last six or so years.
- It’s a woman’s right to choose
Sorry guys, this one’s for the girls.
- The Pill + Me
My story with the Pill begins at the vulnerable age of 18; I’ll begin at the point when I knew something was wrong.
- Interview: James Carroll
The Phoenix 's Adam Reilly recently spoke with Globe columnist James Carroll about his new book, Practicing Catholic (Houghton Mifflin), and his critical but durable relationship with the Roman Catholic Church.
- Pink ribbons: Play hardball!
In ancient times, men appeased the gods by tossing female virgins into volcanoes and families left their newborn daughters on hillsides to die since girls were less "valuable" than boys.
- Letters to the Portland Editor, May 12, 2006:
Readers sound off on last week's Birth-Control series
- McCain has a double standard on Viagra and birth control
McCain backed legislation allowing Medicaid to cover Viagra for men, while forbidding the federal health-insurance program for the poor from covering birth control pills for women.
- Got Choice?
I hope for the day when my daughter and granddaughter will never have to write — or read — columns like this one.
- Less
Topics:
This Just In
, Elections and Voting, Politics, Health and Fitness, More
, Elections and Voting, Politics, Health and Fitness, Special Interest Groups, Medicine, Sexual and Reproductive Health, Birth Control, War and Conflict, Medical Specializations, Medicare, Less
