Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Gotta love that free contraception!

Gotta love that free contraception!

By way of a HHS decision, we are all paying for it.

Isn’t this wonderful?

More than half of privately insured women are getting free birth control under President Barack Obama’s health law, a major coverage shift that’s likely to advance.

…The share of privately insured women who got their birth control pills without a copayment jumped to 56 percent [in 2013], from 14 percent in 2012. The law’s requirement that most health plans cover birth control as prevention, at no additional cost to women, took full effect in 2013.

The average annual saving for women was $269.

Of course, neither insurance companies nor the government give us things for free. Everything government does is paid for through taxes. I suppose if you pay no taxes it’s free to you, but even then, an insurance company is still (when last I checked) in the business to make money and not give things away.

The birth control mandate, by the way, was not voted on by Congress, not even by the convoluted machinations through which Obamacare itself was passed. The mandate, as well as its reduction in the extent of co-pays, was an administrative HHS decision, based in part on the recommendation of a medical panel known as the IOM [emphasis mine]:

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates contraceptive coverage for all employers and educational institutions, even though the mandate itself is not included in the wording of the law(s) passed by Congress. The mandate applies to all new health insurance plans effective August 2012…

On January 20, 2012, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced a (then) final rule of an August 1, 2011 interim final rule on health insurance coverage with no cost sharing for FDA-approved contraceptives and contraceptive services (including female sterilization) for women of reproductive age if prescribed by health care providers, as part of women’s preventive health services guidelines adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Affordable Care Act. Male contraception is not eligible.

Regulations made under the act rely on the recommendations of the independent Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its July 19, 2011 report Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps…

All of the birth control mandate lawsuits (and Hobby Lobby should more accurately be described as an abortifacient lawsuit) follow from that mandate by HHS, which followed from that report by the IOM. The lawsuits focused on the mandates’ anti-religious aspects, because that was the issue for those particular plaintiffs. But there are other possible objections, such as whether the government should be mandating that something like contraception coverage be “free” (that is, no direct and obvious consumer contribution) for anyone, and especially for those who can afford it, since so far as I can see there is no means test.

You can find the IOM report here. Basically, it seems that HHS asked the IOM to review “what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then [recommend] which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines,” and that’s exactly what the group did. Under their recommendations, HHS announced that:

…a full range of preventive services for women, including annual well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, breastfeeding support, HPV testing, STI counseling and HIV screening, contraception methods and counseling, and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence, will be covered by new health plans without cost sharing.

This is both mandated and for the most part completely covered, so we are all paying for it, and it was never even subjected to a vote by Congress.

And dare I ask: what of men? I understand that only women can get pregnant, and this is a very important aspect of their health care that does not apply to men. But don’t things like HIV, contraception, domestic violence, and STIs apply to men? Do they not deserve some freebies too?

And what of the myriad other health problems we all face? If the socialist camel has gotten his nose in the tent regarding women’s reproductive care, why shouldn’t his whole body and then a whole herd of camels follow? The answer is, of course, that universal “free” coverage has always been the intention of the left. And getting the birth control mandate in there slyly and secretly was the way to go, because Obamacare might never have been passed if its designers and proponents had been upfront and put it in the statute itself.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Tags:

Comments

Statutes trump rule-making by Collectivist bureaucrats (RFRA v. HHS “mandates”).

Suck it, Collectivists…!!!

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | July 7, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Statutes are exactly what give the agencies their rule-making authority. Where did you think they got it? From the fairies?!

The contraceptive mandate [fiat?] has caused a lot of misconceptions.

Can men get free condoms? Or free vasectomies?

If no, then “war on men!”

    genes in reply to MrE. | July 6, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    ” Male contraception is not eligible”
    Someone should sue for sex discrimination.
    BTW I don’t think Viagra or other fertility treatments should be required coverage either.

In the long run, I really don’t mind paying for liberals to not have children. Actually, if you can’t afford birth control pills, you really can’t afford a child.

“what of men? I understand that only women can get pregnant,…”

Yes, but it does require the (usually enthusiastic) cooperation of a man — though many lesbians wish to deny that fact, while many gay men are desperately trying to deny that only women can bear children (and we’re bigots if we point out the obvious).

Anyway: Why is it so unreasonable to expect that a woman share the cost of contraception with the specific man directly involved in the act?

I already now why Democrats think it’s unreasonable, because I’ve heard it from their own mouths: The woman, they say, might not know the man well enough to ask such a (ahem) personal question!

And why would a woman be involved in such an intimate act with a man she doesn’t know very well? In large part because lib-Dems have been encouraging precisely that kind of behavior for decades. And they think we the taxpayers should pay the cost.

That’s the Democrat philosophy in a nutshell: People should be not only free but positively encouraged to be reckless in their personal conduct, and the rest of us should be compelled to pay the costs and repair the wreckage.

Next time I hear a woman complain about the unaffordable cost of contraception, I’d like to ask her what she spends on clothes, cosmetics, entertainment, smart phones, etc. Some of those whining women might be paying more on veterinary bills than they’re willing to pay for their own health expenses.

And by the way: how on earth did women get the stuff before some federal bureaucrats decreed that it must be communally funded (i.e. “free”)? That dictate kicked in quite recently, but somehow we’re sliding into Taliban-land if it isn’t imposed everywhere?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T, find out what it means to me: Here’s your free pills, baby. Now give it to me when you get home.

War on women? Yep. The left is telling women what they’re worth.

Men are the designated slaves of the state, not its nobility, so of course government regulations ignore them.

Jane the Actuary | July 6, 2014 at 7:32 pm

As far as the IOM is concerned, this has nothing to do with whether contraception is “affordable” for women. The goal is to get more women to use longer-lasting methods like the IUD and implants, by eliminating the cost consideration.

Based on the AP article, they haven’t succeeded.

http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/07/reading-institute-of-medicine.html

It’s impossible to have a rational debate when it is based on a false premise.

I would support availability and accessibility of universal contraception, not abortion; but only after pro-choice advocates acknowledge that human life evolves from conception to death. They need to understand and appreciate the consequences of their “choice” in public. They should not feel comfortable to conduct their activities under a veil of privacy.

contraception is Liberal Progressive Democrat code speak 4 ABORTION, you should fix the title, and every mention in your article

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend