Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds *Edit title: Where are Moms against Free BC?*

Posted by   + Show Post

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

A dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project  -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was “very surprised” by the magnitude.

In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women). 

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert pushed the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

“It just has so many implications for our society,” he told NBC News.

Several factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

That’s important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women.

James Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and an expert in family planning called the results “terrific, great work, and a very important demonstration project.” 

But it’s also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover contraceptive costs. That’s led to conflicts among the Obama administration, the Catholic church, and the church’s political allies who argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance contradicts the church’s teaching and represents a breach of religious freedom.

Conservatives have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

But experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year. 

“The way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in women’s health and public health and family planning, is that this saves money,” Peipert said. “When you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesn’t matter what side one is on politically, that’s a good thing.”

The Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. “If, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,” wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

But to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. “What the study suggests to me,” said John Santelli, professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, “is that it’s totally supportive of the president’s provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.”

In a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.

Trussell argued that cost savings go “well beyond” those immediate medical savings. They don’t, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who doesn’t finish high school or skips college because she’s had a baby.

Research has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and crime. 

“It’s hard to imagine how politicians wouldn’t like to spend a dollar to save four,” Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that “it makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.”

Brian Alexander (www.BrianRAlexander.com) is co-author, with Larry Young Ph.D., of "The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex and the Science of Attraction," (www.TheChemistryBetweenUs.com), now on sale.

New World Peace

by on Oct. 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Replies (41-50):
Nighttiger
by Bronze Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 1:50 PM

The only issue I see is there are women who can not take certain forms of hormonal birth control. For example, I can not take anything estrogen based. In the month I was on estrogen based bc, I had 3 stroke like episodes including loss of vision, migraines, loss of use of half my body, etc. That was 15 years ago. I haven't had an episode before or since. Luckily I can take depo and the mini pill no problem. There are other women however who react badly to all kinds of hormonal birth control. What do you do when they apply for aide?Do you just say "sorry your body is messed up that it can't handle it but you can starve now"?

Also, as far as something implanted for your teens, make sure they don't have bad reactions either. My episodes were when I was 16. I would not wish that on anyone and I am VERY glad I could just stop taking them instead of having something implanted in my arm.  

Quoting illinoismommy83:

Medicaid should only cover  medically-nescessary abortions. Require a dr to sign off on it. Tax payers shouldn't have to cover a penny of "just because" abortions.

Paying for prevention would save us money in the long term. More people would wait till they are ready instead of simply stepping up and parenting before they are ready because of an oops baby.

Implanon, Mirena, etc. have good long term benefits. Lots of women have lighter or non-existant periods on them. Clears up your skin too.

I'd have no problem taking my daughters on their 15th birthdays in for Implanon. I wouldn't do an IUD on a teen, but their arm can handle it. I want ALL children and young adults to have the choice to attend college or vocational school or simply move up within a company and have kids when they are ready and not when the condom breaks. Young ladies are growing up too fast due to lack of prevention.


Quoting paganbaby:

Do you want to change it so medicaid doesn't cover abortions?

As for the long term BC, as long as the side effects aren't serious, I don't see a problem with it. If you're poor enough to need welfare, you definitely don't need anymore kids.

Quoting illinoismommy83:

Idea: Make long term (mirena, implanon, paragard, etc) birth control free to all (on the tax payers dime) and triple abortion costs. Also, put a 6 month stipulation on welfare recipients to get on the free long-term bc or their benefits get seriously cut. 

I'm sure this makes me a bitch, but if you can't feed the ones you have now you should be on an iud or implant.




tooptimistic
by Kelly on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.

eema.gray
by on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:23 PM
1 mom liked this

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.


"I am only one, but I am still one; I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." ~~ Edward Everett Hale 1822-1909
tooptimistic
by Kelly on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 

It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 

If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 

Quoting eema.gray:

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.

 


NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM
2 moms liked this

I have never been a supporter of "free" birth control, although I think it should be covered like any prescription on insurance.

However, this article has changed my mind.

If free birth control reduces the need for abortion, then it is an investment worth making.

How can you argue against that?

Quoting tooptimistic:

Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 

It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 

If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 

Quoting eema.gray:

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.




New World Peace

eema.gray
by on Oct. 5, 2012 at 2:56 PM
2 moms liked this

Hypothetical.

Let's say that I'm still living in my home state (WI).  Let's further say that my father is in poor health and that I work in healthcare.  Also, my children are growing up seeing all of their cousins at least once a month in addition to having a close relationship with their grandparents.  Now, let's say that the small community hospital I work in is bought out by the St. Joseph system (I'm not making that up, that system does exist in the part of WI I grew up in and is expanding at a prodigious rate).  Up until the buyout, my IUD placement every 5 years has been covered, in full, by my hospital's employee insurance plan.  Imediately after the buy out, I get a letter stating that my low dose hormonal IUD will no longer be covered under the hospital's employee insurance.  I also get a letter from the insurance company notifying me that I can still get the IUD, however I will have to go to a non St. Joseph's network doctor to implant it AND I will be responsible for the doctor's visit (since it's out of network) as well as 80% of the cost of the device itself, for a total of, oh, let's say $500.

Now, since the device works for 5 years, this is a pretty good deal.  However, it's also insulting because 4 years ago when I had this one put it, I didn't have to pay for the visit or the device and I'm still paying the same insurance provider the same amount of money every month.

I don't want to move because I want my children to grow up near their cousins and grandparents.  I don't want to move because my father is in poor health.  I would have to move at minimum, 200 miles from my current home to get outside the reach of the St. Joseph's network of hospitals and care providers (yes, this is based on real data from where I grew up) and frankly, the cost of making such a move is cost prohibitive compared to the amount I'm being asked to pay next year for my new IUD.  

Now, you may not have a problem with this scenario.  I however have a GIGANTIC problem with knowing that a Catholic system can buy a hospital out and turn around and tell employees that costs that were once covered on their insurance is no longer covered on the exact same insurance plan.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 

It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 

If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 

Quoting eema.gray:

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.




"I am only one, but I am still one; I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything I will not refuse to do the something that I can do." ~~ Edward Everett Hale 1822-1909
tooptimistic
by Kelly on Oct. 5, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Look, we are just going to disagree on this.

My problem isn't birth control.  Its forcing someone or a company who is religious (like a Catholic hospital) to pay or do something that is clearly against their religion.

In your senerio below, she knows her employer is not going to pay for it, so she should just pay for it herself, and know she will have to drive to have procedure done, if she isn't going to get another  from an employer who will cover it.  

If we force birth control on a Catholic hospital what is next?  Government can not force its beliefs.

If I worked for a Catholic hospital, I would have to pay for my own birth control that I am probably going to have to start using for my female issues.   It is what is. 

If I worked for a hospital bought out by St. Joseph's, I would know that my bc would be covered.  But.. I would still at least have a job.

Like I said, I think we will just have to disagree on this.  I think the government is wrong for forcing its beliefs, when they know certain companies/ people will be morally opposed.

Quoting eema.gray:

Hypothetical.

Let's say that I'm still living in my home state (WI).  Let's further say that my father is in poor health and that I work in healthcare.  Also, my children are growing up seeing all of their cousins at least once a month in addition to having a close relationship with their grandparents.  Now, let's say that the small community hospital I work in is bought out by the St. Joseph system (I'm not making that up, that system does exist in the part of WI I grew up in and is expanding at a prodigious rate).  Up until the buyout, my IUD placement every 5 years has been covered, in full, by my hospital's employee insurance plan.  Imediately after the buy out, I get a letter stating that my low dose hormonal IUD will no longer be covered under the hospital's employee insurance.  I also get a letter from the insurance company notifying me that I can still get the IUD, however I will have to go to a non St. Joseph's network doctor to implant it AND I will be responsible for the doctor's visit (since it's out of network) as well as 80% of the cost of the device itself, for a total of, oh, let's say $500.

Now, since the device works for 5 years, this is a pretty good deal.  However, it's also insulting because 4 years ago when I had this one put it, I didn't have to pay for the visit or the device and I'm still paying the same insurance provider the same amount of money every month.

I don't want to move because I want my children to grow up near their cousins and grandparents.  I don't want to move because my father is in poor health.  I would have to move at minimum, 200 miles from my current home to get outside the reach of the St. Joseph's network of hospitals and care providers (yes, this is based on real data from where I grew up) and frankly, the cost of making such a move is cost prohibitive compared to the amount I'm being asked to pay next year for my new IUD.  

Now, you may not have a problem with this scenario.  I however have a GIGANTIC problem with knowing that a Catholic system can buy a hospital out and turn around and tell employees that costs that were once covered on their insurance is no longer covered on the exact same insurance plan.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 

It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 

If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 

Quoting eema.gray:

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.

 

 

 


tooptimistic
by Kelly on Oct. 5, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I am not against birth control.  I am against government forcing ideas, beliefs or actions on a company or individual that goes against their religious beliefs.

The the government can force this on religious hospitals, then what can the government force upon us next?

Quoting NWP:

I have never been a supporter of "free" birth control, although I think it should be covered like any prescription on insurance.

However, this article has changed my mind.

If free birth control reduces the need for abortion, then it is an investment worth making.

How can you argue against that?

Quoting tooptimistic:

Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 

It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 

If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 

Quoting eema.gray:

Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.

Quoting tooptimistic:

Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 

The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.

The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.

 

 



AdrianneHill
by Platinum Member on Oct. 5, 2012 at 3:13 PM
3 moms liked this
I think the slippery slope goes the other way.
If we can't make a business offer its employees alternatives to birth control or even emergency d&c's for the patients in its care, we shouldn't be surprised when other businesses owned by different religions decide they won't cover other things. Jehovah's Witnesses won't cover blood transfusions as well as most fundamental groups seem to have some problem with some kinds of hormonal bc if not with others. I can thing of several religious groups I don't want making my medical decisions because their religion decides what medical procedures I can afford.
Quoting tooptimistic:

Look, we are just going to disagree on this.


My problem isn't birth control.  Its forcing someone or a company who is religious (like a Catholic hospital) to pay or do something that is clearly against their religion.


In your senerio below, she knows her employer is not going to pay for it, so she should just pay for it herself, and know she will have to drive to have procedure done, if she isn't going to get another  from an employer who will cover it.  


If we force birth control on a Catholic hospital what is next?  Government can not force its beliefs.


If I worked for a Catholic hospital, I would have to pay for my own birth control that I am probably going to have to start using for my female issues.   It is what is. 


If I worked for a hospital bought out by St. Joseph's, I would know that my bc would be covered.  But.. I would still at least have a job.


Like I said, I think we will just have to disagree on this.  I think the government is wrong for forcing its beliefs, when they know certain companies/ people will be morally opposed.


Quoting eema.gray:


Hypothetical.


Let's say that I'm still living in my home state (WI).  Let's further say that my father is in poor health and that I work in healthcare.  Also, my children are growing up seeing all of their cousins at least once a month in addition to having a close relationship with their grandparents.  Now, let's say that the small community hospital I work in is bought out by the St. Joseph system (I'm not making that up, that system does exist in the part of WI I grew up in and is expanding at a prodigious rate).  Up until the buyout, my IUD placement every 5 years has been covered, in full, by my hospital's employee insurance plan.  Imediately after the buy out, I get a letter stating that my low dose hormonal IUD will no longer be covered under the hospital's employee insurance.  I also get a letter from the insurance company notifying me that I can still get the IUD, however I will have to go to a non St. Joseph's network doctor to implant it AND I will be responsible for the doctor's visit (since it's out of network) as well as 80% of the cost of the device itself, for a total of, oh, let's say $500.


Now, since the device works for 5 years, this is a pretty good deal.  However, it's also insulting because 4 years ago when I had this one put it, I didn't have to pay for the visit or the device and I'm still paying the same insurance provider the same amount of money every month.


I don't want to move because I want my children to grow up near their cousins and grandparents.  I don't want to move because my father is in poor health.  I would have to move at minimum, 200 miles from my current home to get outside the reach of the St. Joseph's network of hospitals and care providers (yes, this is based on real data from where I grew up) and frankly, the cost of making such a move is cost prohibitive compared to the amount I'm being asked to pay next year for my new IUD.  


Now, you may not have a problem with this scenario.  I however have a GIGANTIC problem with knowing that a Catholic system can buy a hospital out and turn around and tell employees that costs that were once covered on their insurance is no longer covered on the exact same insurance plan.


Quoting tooptimistic:


Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 


It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 


If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 


Quoting eema.gray:


Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.


Quoting tooptimistic:


Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 


The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.


The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.


 


 


 



Posted on CafeMom Mobile
tooptimistic
by Kelly on Oct. 5, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Then don't work for an employer with a religious affiliation, like a Catholic Hospital..  :)

Quoting AdrianneHill:

I think the slippery slope goes the other way.
If we can't make a business offer its employees alternatives to birth control or even emergency d&c's for the patients in its care, we shouldn't be surprised when other businesses owned by different religions decide they won't cover other things. Jehovah's Witnesses won't cover blood transfusions as well as most fundamental groups seem to have some problem with some kinds of hormonal bc if not with others. I can thing of several religious groups I don't want making my medical decisions because their religion decides what medical procedures I can afford.
Quoting tooptimistic:

Look, we are just going to disagree on this.


My problem isn't birth control.  Its forcing someone or a company who is religious (like a Catholic hospital) to pay or do something that is clearly against their religion.


In your senerio below, she knows her employer is not going to pay for it, so she should just pay for it herself, and know she will have to drive to have procedure done, if she isn't going to get another  from an employer who will cover it.  


If we force birth control on a Catholic hospital what is next?  Government can not force its beliefs.


If I worked for a Catholic hospital, I would have to pay for my own birth control that I am probably going to have to start using for my female issues.   It is what is. 


If I worked for a hospital bought out by St. Joseph's, I would know that my bc would be covered.  But.. I would still at least have a job.


Like I said, I think we will just have to disagree on this.  I think the government is wrong for forcing its beliefs, when they know certain companies/ people will be morally opposed.


Quoting eema.gray:


Hypothetical.


Let's say that I'm still living in my home state (WI).  Let's further say that my father is in poor health and that I work in healthcare.  Also, my children are growing up seeing all of their cousins at least once a month in addition to having a close relationship with their grandparents.  Now, let's say that the small community hospital I work in is bought out by the St. Joseph system (I'm not making that up, that system does exist in the part of WI I grew up in and is expanding at a prodigious rate).  Up until the buyout, my IUD placement every 5 years has been covered, in full, by my hospital's employee insurance plan.  Imediately after the buy out, I get a letter stating that my low dose hormonal IUD will no longer be covered under the hospital's employee insurance.  I also get a letter from the insurance company notifying me that I can still get the IUD, however I will have to go to a non St. Joseph's network doctor to implant it AND I will be responsible for the doctor's visit (since it's out of network) as well as 80% of the cost of the device itself, for a total of, oh, let's say $500.


Now, since the device works for 5 years, this is a pretty good deal.  However, it's also insulting because 4 years ago when I had this one put it, I didn't have to pay for the visit or the device and I'm still paying the same insurance provider the same amount of money every month.


I don't want to move because I want my children to grow up near their cousins and grandparents.  I don't want to move because my father is in poor health.  I would have to move at minimum, 200 miles from my current home to get outside the reach of the St. Joseph's network of hospitals and care providers (yes, this is based on real data from where I grew up) and frankly, the cost of making such a move is cost prohibitive compared to the amount I'm being asked to pay next year for my new IUD.  


Now, you may not have a problem with this scenario.  I however have a GIGANTIC problem with knowing that a Catholic system can buy a hospital out and turn around and tell employees that costs that were once covered on their insurance is no longer covered on the exact same insurance plan.


Quoting tooptimistic:


Then move, it free birth control is that important to you. 


It is wrong for government to require someone to do something that is against their religion.  If the hospital has a religious affiliation, then it should not be required to pay for something they are and aways have been against. 


If the government forces to Catholic hospitals to pay for birth control, then what will government force us to do next? 


Quoting eema.gray:


Except for the many parts of this great country where EVERY hospital is a religious (usually Catholic) hospital.  And please don't say those areas are few and far between.  That's the set up in a lot more places than you could imagine because nominally Catholic healthcare networks are buying out  non-affiliated hospitals at an astonishing rate.


Quoting tooptimistic:


Of coarse birth control reduces abortions.  That is a given.  Its not like ladies in this country have no access to birth control at all. 


The government requiring a religious employer, like the Catholic hospitals, to pay for birth control, knowing that birth control is against the teachings of the church is wrong.  A religious institution should not be forced to go against its religious beliefs.  If a female works a Catholic hospital, then she should pay for her birth control herself, go somewhere like Planned Parenthood to get it a reduced cost, or go to the health department.  Its wrong to expect a religious organization to pay for something they feel is a sin.


The employees have choices, they could work for a non religious hospital.


 


 


 


 


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)