Free Birth Control!!!

Jodi - posted on 11/07/2010

I personally have no problem with free birth control being available to people who can't afford it but having to pay for it myself because I can afford it. I'd rather that option than the person who can't afford it bringing a child into the world that she obviously also can't afford and would end up on welfare to raise the child. To me, giving her free birth control is a no brainer. I consider myself fortunate enough to be able to afford my own birth control. I'm certainly not going to bitch about my taxes paying for hers.

Johnny - posted on 11/07/2010

Just to link my above rant back to the birth control issue at hand... it seems that insisting that we are all equal in opportunity ignores the plain fact that we aren't. A 20-something career woman who does not wish to have children yet has greater access to medical care, birth control options, and the ability to pay for those things than does a teenage girl born to a poor rural family who does not have a family physician and must travel miles to the nearest clinic to ask a strange, disapproving physician for birth control. We don't need to pay for the birth control for woman A, but if we don't for woman B, she isn't going to choose not to have sex, she's going to end up with a baby and perhaps an STD. Why is it so important to pretend that people are the same when they aren't? As Krista stated, most of the people who require government aid NEED it. The 20-something career woman isn't going to go to the free clinic and talk to some doctor that she doesn't know because she has access to better, personalized care. The teenage girl doesn't.

Johnny - posted on 11/07/2010

It must be quite an amazing world to live in where anyone can be successful if they try. I spent years volunteering with middle-aged to older men, who had worked hard all of their lives, long hours, difficult conditions in the mining and forest industries. Many of them had gone back for re-training several times as technology in their field advanced. They'd gone to night school for more millwright training and taken courses to learn to use new computer technologies. Around the mid-90's most of the mining industry crashed here and then in the late 90's the forest industry, there was no work in any industry for them to go into, their towns virtually shut down, they migrated to the city looking for work, found that they were too old to get hired here, spent all their savings trying to support themselves and their families and ended up bankrupt. Many of them also experienced severe health impacts as a result of a lifetime of mining work. These men had worked hard, in difficult jobs, and educated themselves all of their lives, to find in their later years that they had nothing left. There was going to be no RV to retire in by the lake or money to give the grandkids for college. I'd like to think that most people aren't naive enough to believe that only through hard work and dedication comes success, but apparently some of you are still out there making the lives of those less fortunate than yourself even more unpleasant than they need to be. I wonder if you can imagine how it feels to an unemployed worker - who has busted their ass all their life, educated themselves, paid their bills, lost their job and been unable to find work in any other way, lived off their savings until exhausted - to hear someone say that if they had just worked harder or been smarter or more stressed out that they would have been successful?



I realize that this post is rather off-topic, but some comments offend me so greatly that I need to respond. And this was one of them.



I have worked hard. I've had a job since I was 14. I worked through 2 university degrees and I've had times where I held down 2 jobs and for a while even 3. My husband has been working in construction since he was 15. He also worked his way through university and then technical college after. He has a good, very stable job. My family and I live quite comfortably. But I am not silly enough to think that bad things could happen that could reverse our fortunes, as much as we try to avoid this. And I know that there was a combination of hard work, perseverance, dedication, and yes, luck, in us being where we are today. The world is a really complex place, and crediting ourselves solely for our fortune totally ignores the fact that we do not control all the factors in our own existence.

Krista - posted on 11/07/2010

I do not feel that those who are poor, or rich, or in the middle, for whatever reason, be it bad luck, good luck, hard work, or laziness are entitled to any less or any more government assistance than anyone else.

See, I think that's the big difference between our philosophies. You keep using the word "entitled" -- as though people who receive government aid feel that they are entitled to it and they deserve it.

I prefer to use the word "need", because in my experience, most people who receive government aid really do NEED it, and are quite grateful to it.

So no, maybe the poor person is not "entitled" to any more government aid than the rich person. But if you're trying to be economical and cut down on government spending, doesn't it make sense to limit social programs to those who actually need it the most? (Health care notwithstanding, as I feel that universal healthcare should be a given.)

Kelly - posted on 11/07/2010

ok :) Well, I also agree with you that successful does not always equal responsible, and poor does not always equal irresponsible, BUT there are a lot of irresponsible people who are poor as a result of irresponsibility and I do not feel they are entitled to any more (or any less) government assistance than the rest of the population. likewise, I do not feel that those who are poor, or rich, or in the middle, for whatever reason, be it bad luck, good luck, hard work, or laziness are entitled to any less or any more government assistance than anyone else. Do we agree on that too?

Krista - posted on 11/07/2010

Krista, I can't tell anymore if we are agreeing or arguing. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards birth control for irresponsible or poor people, as long as it pays for birth control for responsible and successful people as well. I hate the concept of "rewarding" people for being irresponsible.

We're agreeing AND arguing. :)

I'm agreeing that free birth control for ALL is an excellent idea.

And I'm arguing with your equation of successful = responsible and poor = irresponsible.

Kelly - posted on 11/07/2010

Joy, I've been a cashier; it's not hard. Dealing with rude people is part of life, everyone has to do it--even doctors. Should a cashier make as much as a doctor? I don't think so, b/c doctors have the added stress of knowing people can die if they make a mistake--cashiers don't have to deal with that. You do not seem to have much good to say about the profession you chose to work in for 25 years ("chose" was your word, not mine), so why did you choose it? I'm not criticizing, I'm just wondering why, if it was as awful as you made it out to be, that you wanted to do it?

Carol, yes, some people are successful because they are lucky, but very few are just "lucky." They worked hard for the success they have achieved. You mentioned that you know one guy who was "lucky" and got a great job. What about all of the people you know who worked hard, went to school, and busted their asses working late nights to get where they are? I don't know anyone who is successful just because they were lucky. I've heard of it, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but you don't HAVE to be lucky to be successful. Anyone can be successful if they try. ANYONE.

Krista, I can't tell anymore if we are agreeing or arguing. I don't mind my tax dollars going towards birth control for irresponsible or poor people, as long as it pays for birth control for responsible and successful people as well. I hate the concept of "rewarding" people for being irresponsible.

Krista - posted on 11/05/2010

AGAIN, never said I was opposed to spending tax dollars to buy birth control for poor people, I said if you buy birth control for poor people, you need to buy it for everyone.
I have no problem paying for birth control with my taxes. I do have a problem paying for it, then being told, "You make too much to receive this birth control your taxes paid for. Go buy more for yourself."

Actually, I can get behind that as well. I would have no issue with my tax money going towards free contraception for all. There are some people out there who COULD afford birth control, but prefer to drink or smoke their money away. I probably COULD say, "Why should my tax money go towards their irresponsibility?" But, the way I see it is that if they're that irresponsible to eschew birth control in favour of their unsavoury habits or addictions, then would they really make great parents anyway?

Johnny - posted on 11/05/2010

Kelly, I didn't prove your point at all. What I was explaining that sometimes, quite often actually, real success is a result of luck rather than hard work and perseverance. Our friend who has the great paying job, it was just dumb luck. He met a guy in a bar while he was out drinking his ass off who worked HR for the oil company and told him about the unadvertised opening and how to get the job. Most of his friends from his graduating class are working $50,000 a year jobs while he is tripling that. If you ask him, he'll tell you, it was luck. I grew up very well off, and most of the people I knew growing up were well off because of luck or inheritance. Some people do pull themselves up, but usually, there is some luck in there too. Two people can come from the same place, make the same amount of effort, work just as hard, be equally as smart and not be equally as successful. The world isn't fair. It doesn't always reward what it should. Not to mention that some people struggle with issues like mental health problems, learning disabilities, and disabilities that impact their ability to succeed.

You are right, birth control does cost money, regardless of who pays for it. Personally, I am quite happy for my tax dollars to pay for birth control for people unable to afford it so that there are not unwanted children running around out there miserable. But then again, I want my tax dollars to fund a vibrant healthy society, I don't feel the need to hold on to my money like Ebenezer Scrooge. I know that I share this earth with other people, and if those around me are struggling, poor, uneducated, uncared for etc, the society that I live in and my child grows up in will have higher crime, higher poverty rates, and be a significantly less pleasant place to live. Since I go out my front door every day into that world, I'd rather it be a good place than something out of Blade Runner.

Joy - posted on 11/05/2010

I'm with the school of thought that says the US should get on the Universal Healthcare track. It's successfully worked for many other countries and we should just do it already. So that means yes, I would support government funded birth control but it would require an obvious overhaul of the system which, apparently isn't gonna happen yet. Yet. I'm still hopeful :)

Kelly, you said : "There are tons and tons of jobs out there that pay well, that anyone can get with no experience or schooling. They may be more stressful than working the cash register at walmart, that is why they pay more, but they do not require any more experience, just willingness to do them."

What makes you think that cashiering at Wal Mart (or anywhere for that matter) isn't stressful? I've made a career out of cashiering (almost 25 years experience by choice) and I'm here to tell you that it is a highly stressful job. We are complained to, yelled at, expected to be respectful to people who feel so entitled that they don't ever say please or thank you. We get to stand there for hours on end waiting on people who are rude, talk down to us and can't be bothered to get off their cell phones long enough to look a person in the eye. Dealing with the entitled assholes of the world not stressful? I beg to differ.

Kelly - posted on 11/05/2010

"Kelly what do you consider "finsishing school"? "

I consider "finishing school" to mean educated to the point you need to be educated for the job you want to have.
For some people, that is 10th grade, if they want to work a low-skill job. For others that might mean high school diploma if they want to work in a factory or trade. Others, community college or vocational training, and others might need a college degree, medical schooling or law degree. My husband needed an internship (unpaid) on top of his degrees--it is different for everyone.

Kelly - posted on 11/05/2010

"And who are you to say that they're not?"
I am not anyone to decide whether they are or not. I would hope that they have enough self respect to hold themselves accountable and that we could depend on their honesty, but we cannot, can we? There is no way to tell, so we just have to treat everyone equally. If you give to one, you must give equally to all.

"I mean, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think people should be having children they can't afford, so why is that conviction not worth a few of your dollars in order to help make sure that fewer poor people are having kids?"

AGAIN, never said I was opposed to spending tax dollars to buy birth control for poor people, I said if you buy birth control for poor people, you need to buy it for everyone.
I have no problem paying for birth control with my taxes. I do have a problem paying for it, then being told, "You make too much to receive this birth control your taxes paid for. Go buy more for yourself."

AND, you do not need youth, brains, and luck to get a job that pays enough to support the family you created. I for one, did NOT have good luck, and from reading Tah's "Why" post, I don't think very many people do. I don't have tons of brains. I didn't finish college. I had youth, but really, we all get that don't we--it's up to us what we do with it.

Jennifer - posted on 11/05/2010

Another thing Kelly what do you consider "finishing school"? Here in the UK compulsory education finishes at 16. I went to sixth form after school but had to leave in my first year due to severe depression. I am starting to work towards a degree from home in January so I can still be a stay at home mum. My cousin was the first person to get a degree in our family. Neither my mother or father have a degree as very few people got them when they were younger and my mam's 50.

Krista - posted on 11/05/2010

In my "world-view" no one has an excuse to be DEPENDING ON WELFARE for an extended period of time if they are not actively trying to better their financial situation.

And who are you to say that they're not? Hard work can only get you so far if you don't have the aptitude or the luck. You assume that everybody on long-term welfare is just sitting on their ass and not even trying, and that is a very unfair assumption.

Furthermore, single mothers stuck in minimum wage jobs chose to become mothers before finishing school and getting higher paying jobs. That was their choice, no one made it for them.

Once again, that's a pretty big assumption you're making there, Kelly. How do you know those mothers HAVEN'T finished school?

I just find your attitude really shocking. You've said yourself that you came from extreme poverty. And you got out of it, and that's very commendable. But not every person in your situation is going to have youth, brains and a little bit of luck -- the three things that you pretty much HAVE to have in order for your hard work to actually get you anywhere. I guess I'm just really surprised that you have so little empathy for these people to the point where you begrudge them your tax dollars for free birth control. I mean, you've made it pretty clear that you don't think people should be having children they can't afford, so why is that conviction not worth a few of your dollars in order to help make sure that fewer poor people are having kids?

Kelly - posted on 11/05/2010

AGH! I NEVER SAID BIRTH CONTROL SHOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THOSE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT!!! Quote where you see that. I said, if it is available to some, it needs to be available to ALL. And IT IS NOT FREE!!!! You have to be a moron if you think any kind of birth control is free. You are paying for it--you are either paying higher taxes to the government so that they can reimburse the doctor or manufacturer for the birth control you buy from them, or you pay the doctor / manufacturer directly.

Carol and Anika, you kind of proved my point--it does not take a college degree and a sky-high IQ to get a job that supports a family. You just have to be willing to do it. I was homeless as a kid. Then I fought cancer for 4 years after high school. I didn't finish college. I have NEVER needed welfare. Why? because I supported myself and didn't think "oh, whoa is me, I'm so poor, others must support me."

Yes, the poverty level is different in different places, where you live, $40k might not be much, but the poverty line for my state is $22k for a family of four. So a janitor making $40k is not living in poverty. He may drive a used car and live in a small house, but he is able to support himself and his family on the salary he gets at his job that nearly anyone can get if they are willing to clean a toilet. There are tons and tons of jobs out there that pay well, that anyone can get with no experience or schooling. They may be more stressful than working the cash register at walmart, that is why they pay more, but they do not require any more experience, just willingness to do them.

Granted, right now, in this economy, there are a lot of people in less than adequate jobs due to loosing their original jobs, but those people are actively looking for jobs in their old fields or going to school for jobs in new fields. I have no problem with them receiving assistance.
You may think that people choosing to live on welfare are few and far between, but I volunteer with two programs for poor children, and their parents CHOOSE to live on welfare, and welfare enables them to do so. Obviously, I do not want the children to suffer, but the system is flawed and needs attention.

Jodi - posted on 11/05/2010

So Kelly, would you rather have tax funded mouths to feed? IMO it is far cheaper to subsidise birth control than to have those women either giving birth to children they can't afford or having an abortion they probably can't afford. Why are only the rich entitled to have sex?

Johnny - posted on 11/04/2010

Thank you for pointing out Anika that high-paying jobs don't necessarily require a high skill level, high stress, hard work, etc. I'd also like to point out that some low paying jobs require all of the above.

One of our close friends, for instance, fell ass backwards into a high-paying, low-stress, not particularly highly skilled job. He trained as a boilermaker (1 year at the local technical college) and got lucky enough to get on with an oil company. He works 4 days on (40 hours), 4 days off, and if he works any additional shifts he receives double-time. He grosses more than double what my husband makes with his Master's in Physics and his Millwright ticket because my husband works for the government. My husband usually puts in 45 hours a week and is in night school to expand his millwright expertise. My dad graduated from high school with a C- minus average, became an air-traffic controller (yes, high stress) and did very well for himself. You may think that life is fair and the harder people worker, the more they get rewarded, but sadly, the universe doesn't ACTUALLY work like that!

Anika - posted on 11/04/2010

Wow Kelly. Has it ever dawned on you that we don't all have the same aptitude for learning and we certainly don't all have the same start in life and opportunities? I knew many friends at school who studied and studied and studied and never did better than a B. There was no way they could make it into medical school (for example) but it wasn't through lack of trying and they certainly didn't choose to be mediocre at studying. Also, as already stated, a lot of lower paid jobs are anything but easy or low stress. Conversely, there are a lot of easy, low stress office jobs. I know. I used to have one.

Most people on welfare are trying their hardest to get off. Sure, there are some who abuse it, but they are in the minority. You can't judge everyone based on a few bad apples.

Finally, you have to understand that sometimes you have to spend money to save money. In NZ a lot of things like birth control are subsidised by the government for everyone, but then there are certain things that only low income people qualify for (for example, cheaper doctor's visits). I think this is a good thing as it encourages people to seek treatment in the early stages. This saves on health care in the long run. Same with education. Same with housing. It's all about breaking the cycle of need.

Johnny - posted on 11/04/2010

I do suppose it depends on where you live Kelly. Things look rather different from my perspective, of someone living where the cost of living is high. No one here can really support a family on $40K a year without help from the system and housing subsidy. My neighbor is a licensed practical nurse and requires housing subsidy to afford her place (a 3 bedroom townhouse for herself, her son, and her grandson). We do not live in the posh end of town either. The very idea that birth control should not be available to people who can't afford it frightens me. But I guess I'm a realist and I know that people just won't stop having sex because other people think they shouldn't. Sex is pretty much a basic human need and only moral superiorists would suggest that not all are eligible for paticipation.

Barb - posted on 11/04/2010

My question is why is the National Catholic Bioethics Center getting a voice into a health care issue?



A religious, ethics committee has no place within a biological health care issue.



It seems to me, and i don't mean to pick on Catholics but they have been around the longest and got to do the most damage, but they like to offer the problems but no solutions. For example, No, you can't use contraception, and no, you can't have an abortion, and no, we aren't going to feed, clothe and take care of the children we wouldn't let you prevent.





Edited to add: I think free birth control is an awesome idea. Should be all types for boys and girls

Kelly - posted on 11/04/2010

Krista, that was uncalled for.

In my "world-view" no one has an excuse to be DEPENDING ON WELFARE for an extended period of time if they are not actively trying to better their financial situation. If they can support themselves and families on a low wage, that is wonderful. If they cannot support themselves, they need to be actively taking steps to work towards supporting themselves, and if they are not doing so, then yes, I would say that is choosing to depend on others to pick up their slack.

Furthermore, single mothers stuck in minimum wage jobs chose to become mothers before finishing school and getting higher paying jobs. That was their choice, no one made it for them.



Allison, I don't even know what you are talking about. I am not trying to "impose my moral views on others" and I AM looking for real life solutions. I haven't read any suggestions from you.

I said I was FOR free birth control, as long as it is free for EVERYONE. I NEVER said not to supply needs to the poor, but if you give it to the poor, it needs to be equally available to the rich.



And Carol, just because a job is not a "profession" does not mean it does not pay enough to support a family--my garbage man makes $45k annually, he's not rich, but he lives within his means. He chose to be a garbage man b/c it is a low stress job, yes, he told me so, and it pays enough to get him and his family by. The janitor at my husband's office makes $40k, he is not poor, he is not rich, but he is supporting himself and he likes his job. My mom cleans rooms at a nursing home for $35k, again not rich, but not poor either. Anyone could get any of those jobs. I'm sorry, but many of the jobs you are mentioning are simply not designed to support a family. They are designed to support a single person or to be a part of a two income family. Higher paid jobs are designed to support families. That's life.



The problem is that people want to work in low stress, easy jobs and have all the luxuries that people in high stress jobs have. You get what you work for. No one would want to be a surgeon if they could have the same lifestyle working as a cashier. I know part of it is "helping people" but 4 surgeons live on my street and if you ask any of them why they chose to be a surgeon, money will be at the top of their reasons. I know, I've asked. Ask a banker why he became a banker--money. No one would want that job if it paid a cashier's salary.

Jennifer - posted on 11/04/2010

Yes my husband is currently studying he starte din September but he's been in that job for 3 years so he hasn't been studying all that time but yes the UK and US are so different.

Johnny - posted on 11/04/2010

It would be a very unpleasant world to live in if there were no janitors, street cleaners, garbage men, retail sales people, restaurant wait staff, daycare workers, receptionists..... I could go on. Perhaps it is just okay for people to choose low-paying professions as long as they never have sex and procreate. I guess only doctors, lawyers, and business men should be doing the nasty. Everyone else, no sex for you! It's like the 'Sex Nazi' (rather than the Soup Nazi before everyone jumps on me for the Nazi reference).

Alison - posted on 11/04/2010

Kelly, I think you've got a very peculiar view of the world and I don't have the time or energy to address it. Yikes! Seriously.

The problem with the "keep your legs shut" approach is that the results impact innocent children! Innocent fetuses that are aborted, innocent children who are abused, unwanted, plagued by disabilities related to substance abuse during pregnancy. Stop trying to impose your moral values on others and look for REAL-LIFE solutions for our society!!!

Krista - posted on 11/04/2010

I think you're being incredibly unrealistic, Kelly.



So in your worldview, any non-retired, non-student adult has absolutely no excuse to be in a minimum wage job for an extended period, and if they are, it means that they're lazy and just won't WANT to better themselves?



Um, yeah. No. That's kind of not how the world works. There are a lot of people stuck in min-wage jobs because sadly, it takes MONEY and it takes TIME to take classes to attain a different career. And if you're a single mom working min wage, you have neither money nor time (especially if you also need health insurance, due to your country being uncivilized enough to not have universal health coverage.)



Are there some people out there who are working low-wage jobs because they just can't be bothered? Probably. But my guess is that the number is a lot less than you'd think. I think your little stereotype about the "the people who choose to work low wage, easy jobs their entire lives because they don't want to put forth any more effort than they have to and can depend on welfare to support them" is just the 2010 version of Regan's "welfare queen driving a Cadillac". That was proven to be a bullshit scare tactic used to divide people and create animus against your social safety net. This is the same thing. I would bet you dollars to donuts that MOST people working min-wage jobs a) work damned hard for the pittance that they make and b) are stuck in those jobs, or jobs like them.



I also am not impressed with your attitude of "why should my hard-earned money help that lazy welfare bum"? Once again, you're buying into stereotypes. And secondly, I would much prefer for my tax money to help someone on social services keep a roof over their head and feed their kids than for it to go towards the funding of a war machine that kills a metric shit-ton of people. But maybe I'm just crazy.

Kelly - posted on 11/04/2010

I never said they were lazy. Your husband fits the description of the people lower wage jobs were designed for --He is studying at college. I specifically said that they were meant for people in college. Your husband is TEMPORARILY working in a lower wage job while he studies, is he not? I am talking about the people who choose to work low wage, easy jobs their entire lives because they don't want to put forth any more effort than they have to and can depend on welfare to support them. And if they can live comfortably on the low wage without welfare, I have no problem with that either--I just don't like having to use money I worked hard to earn to support people who are not willing to work hard and earn enough to support themselves. I don't know how to make that any more clear.


You also have to consider that you are in the UK and I am in the US. You have universal healthcare, we don't. Employers here prefer part time workers for low wage jobs because they have to provide group insurance, paid time off, and other benefits which are very expensive, to full time workers, but are not required to give them to part time workers.

Jennifer - posted on 11/03/2010

Kelly the majority of the people in the UK who work in the lower paid jobs have families. Only a minority are teens and those studying as they can only work part-time and companies prefer full-time workers. Plus here bus drivers have to be a minimum of 21 years old. My husband doesn't have a fab paid job but it isn't minimum wage either and he's also studying at college so he can go to uni next year but despite this I don't look at people with low paid jobs and think they're lazy people. Your view is very narrowminded!

Kelly - posted on 11/03/2010

To be a bus driver here you have to have 5 yrs of clean driving record. So that rules out teens, and if the college kid has managed to make it 5 yrs w/o out screwing up in a car, I feel pretty safe about them driving a bus. Our bus drivers also make more than minimum wage. They start out at $12/hour for part time, then go to salary for full time--not enough to support a family, but it would be after a few years b/c they get very good raises & benefits once they go salary.
Honestly, I cannot think of a single minimum wage job that is too stressful for a teen, college kid, or retiree to take on.

Krista - posted on 11/02/2010

Whoo, Kelly! You want some teenager or hung-over college student driving your bus? You're pretty brave, lady!

And I have to laugh that you think that's a low-stress jobs.

Some min. wage jobs can be some of the most stressful jobs out there.

Kelly - posted on 11/02/2010

(This is off topic, just a response to Sarah's question)



"Who would clean the streets, drive buses, work on checkouts etc?"



That is a very good question, Sarah! Those jobs are not meant for people supporting families. Those jobs are meant for teenagers and college students working part-time through school, or saving for future schooling. They are also good options for retirees working part time to supplement their retirement income. The are easy, low stress jobs that allow for focus on school or flexibility to enjoy retirement.



EDIT: I do understand that right now, due to our economic situation, a lot of people who are supporting families are working these jobs, but I also know that those people view these jobs as "temporary" not as a life long job, and are taking steps to find work in their own fields or to enter other fields with more demand.

Sarah - posted on 11/02/2010

I'm actually quite glad that some people chose lower paid professions and I completely respect them for what they do. If we were all lawyers and bankers who would clean the streets, drive buses, work on checkouts etc?

On the whole the NHS in the UK is pretty good, especially as waiting lists are now shorter than they were a few years ago.

Krista - posted on 11/02/2010

One thing to keep in mind though, Amy, is that not everybody who seeks contraception is unmarried.

I find that when people get into debates about contraception, someone always hauls out the old "well, keep your legs shut" argument. They're assuming that the only people using contraception are teenagers. But there are PLENTY of adult married couples who want to space out the timing of their kids, or who might not even want children at all.

Would free birth control eliminate unwanted pregnancies? Of course not. It's not 100% foolproof. And sadly, rape still exists. So there will always, always, always be unwanted pregnancies. But could free birth control REDUCE the number of unwanted pregnancies? You bet your bippy it could. And when you think about the many societal repercussions of unwanted pregnancies, why would we not throw as much of our power as we can behind the idea of preventing them?

Amy - posted on 11/02/2010

Sometimes I wish I lived in the UK! Your doctors seem to help people get BETTER, not just drug them up like here. I do believe that if you don't want children before marriage, don't have sex. After it's your choice. Whether it's free or not, I don't get how the implant or IUD is safer. It may be more accurate, but poses more health threats, imo. Just reading the list of side effects of birth control freaks me out....but if it's free it is. That doesn't mean that people who get it for free will remember to take it or take it accurately. Nothing is ever "free". Either you pay for it in taxes or in health care insurance though, right? One way or another, someone's paying for it somewhere.

Laura - posted on 11/02/2010

Thanks for clarifying!

Kelly - posted on 11/02/2010

Laura, I am not referring to people who lost their jobs, or have fallen on hard times, I am specifically referring to people who actually chose lower paying jobs because they could not be bothered with getting qualified for and holding a real job and know the taxpayers will always pick up the difference. I have absolutely no problem with people temporarily using government/tax-payer funded assistance when they need it.

I am still not really sure I understand how the subsidies will work. I find that part rather confusing. As I understood it, the government would be subsidizing the cost of insurance for a family based on the families income, which I think is alright, though I don't fully agree with it. Oh! Duh, now I see why the Catholic church is up in arms. Their tax dollars might subsidize some other families' birth control....well that is tricky.

Laura - posted on 11/02/2010

Kelly, I believe this is related to the recent health care overhaul: The government would be subsidizing the cost through the insurance companies. It's my understanding that this would be available to everyone--those with insurance and those without (Medicaid). I could be wrong on that so I would double check.

Be mindful, too, that your assumptions about people choosing "lower paying professions" is just that--an assumption. Many hard-working people (and I'm from a heavily hit area during this last recession) have lost their jobs and NEED to take those lower paying jobs just to gain employment. You are leaving uncontrolable circumstances out of your equation--the engineers, lawyers and other top professionals that lost jobs around here would most likely not choose for the companies they worked for to go out of business! Yet those are the circumstances these professional folks were left with--unemployment and government help for medical issues which are paid for by everyone's tax dollars. Not everything that happens to you in life is by choice...

Kelly - posted on 11/01/2010

Are we talking about tax funded birth control, or about insurance companies being forced to cover the cost of birth control? I think tax funded birth control would be great, as long as it is equally available to everyone. I hate when people get "free" services from the government just because they chose lower paying professions or choose not to work because those of us who chose higher paying professions have to pay out the wazoo to cover our own birth control AND that of those who make less.

I paid just over $1600 for my last IUD. My doctor is reimbursed $416 for the same IUD procedure from Medicaid (which you have to be poor to get). So, my taxes paid her Medicaid reimbursement, and the mark up on my IUD procedure covered the difference on the doctor's time. And don't say she paid taxes to pay for Medicaid, because I pay taxes to Medicaid too, but Medicaid does not pay for my birth control.

If we are talking about insurance companies being required to cover the cost of the birth control, I don't see the issue, they are not publicly funded by taxes. I see the Catholic Churches dilemma though, so maybe they could allow companies to offer a plan that does not cover birth control for a slightly higher rate than the other plans (to cover the cost of additional pregnancies, of course). Honestly, if you are paying for insurance, you should be the one deciding what should and should not be covered, not the government.

Anika - posted on 11/01/2010

I'm with Jennifer. Though ours isn't free but subsidised. I think when I was on the pill it cost me $3 for 3 months (or was is 6 months?) worth. And you could also get condoms on prescription, $3 for a huge box.

Jennifer - posted on 11/01/2010

I live in the UK where brith control is free because our healthcare is free. I think it's a really good idea!