Even though Sebelius has yet to show her support or disapproval of any of the panel's suggestions, which also include HIV screening and support for breast-feeding mothers, murmurs of the possibility of government subsidized birth control have political observers on both sides fired up.
The arguments thus far are as follows:. Without the subsidy, birth control costs too much. More people would take precautions, if they could afford to do so. Birth control isn't cheap, as The Nation 's Sharon Lerner explains. Getting an IUD inserted can cost hundreds. Not only will this save individual pill takers some dough, but the initiative could even cut costs for the government.
Subsidized birth control is a win for women's rights. Greater access to birth control gives women more control over their sexuality, and these new recommendations are a step forward for women's rights, argues Democratic Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, quoted in The New York Times. We are saying hello to an era where decisions about preventive care and screenings are made by a woman and her doctor, not by an insurance company.
Calling birth control "preventative care" would suggest there is some illness to be prevented, these groups argue. All women should have the means to make fundamental choices about whether and when to have children. That is why the public investment in family planning that enables young and low-income women to plan their own pregnancies is smart government at its best. It leads to healthier mothers and babies, empowers women to finish their education or job training, and saves billions in taxpayer dollars.
But cost can be a significant barrier for many women to obtain the birth control method of her choice. The enormous benefit of these investments is well documented: Guttmacher Institute research shows that in , publicly funded family planning services helped women to avoid 2. These unintended pregnancies, in turn, would have resulted in 1. Further, while publicly supported family planning services enable low-income women to have healthier pregnancies and achieve their life goals, they also yield considerable dividends for taxpayers.
About half of these impressive gains come from family planning centers supported by the Title X national family planning program, the linchpin of the U. Without the services provided by these centers in , the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in the United States would be 32 percent higher. Healthier pregnancies, a steep reduction in need for abortion and significant fiscal savings — policymakers of all stripes should line up to support such a hugely successful program, and for decades they had.
In the first two weeks of the policy, women cancelled appointments because they could not make the co-pay. Only 20 percent found the money to get care within a week or two, hospital officials said.
Another 20 percent were referred to one of the two Parkland locations still providing free services. Most of the remaining women never came back for care after learning about the co-pay, said Paula Turicchi, a Parkland senior vice president. In several states, including Texas, questions about birth control access are now entangled with the politically explosive abortion debate. It also runs a network of urban and suburban clinics offering birth control, gynecological exams and care for sexually transmitted diseases.
Several other states, including Ohio, Oklahoma and New Hampshire, are considering similar moves. The Texas funding cut prompted Planned Parenthood to shut down 11 clinics. About 40 percent of women in the Texas program get subsidized care from Planned Parenthood clinics, but a new state law blocks those clinics from participating.
The Obama administration has said that violates federal Medicaid rules.
0コメント