The Institute of Medicine recommended on Tuesday that health care insurers cover the cost of birth control under the new federal health care law. This was just one of the findings on preventive health care services for women from the Institute, the branch of the National Academies of Science tasked with providing research and information on medical topics. But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.
The Department of Health and Human Services will get to make the ultimate decicion about whether insurers will be required to provide birth control free of charge, but this is a good indication that it will.
First, WHY should private insurance companies bear the cost for YOUR birth control? Insurance companies are in business to make money. You pay a premium, they pay if you get sick. It's INSURANCE, not ENTITLEMENTSURANCE.
Take homeowners insurance for example. It's something all homeowners should have, and something people with home loans are required to have. Should State Farm do preventative termite treatments, just in case you get termites? No, of course not. What they expect, and rightly so, is that you do what you have to do to protect your home. In cases where you have no control, such as a fire or tornado, the insurance company will pay to repair, or possibly replace, your home.
Second. What do you think is going to happen to insurance premiums IF this is enforced? Let me give you a hint. Insurance executives aren't going to have it come out of their pocket, are they? Insurance premiums will sky rocket to cover the cost of required add on's due to Obama's healthcare law. Oh, wait, wait, wait... just in case you don't know, this is just another push to force private companies out of business, and force Americans into socialized medicine. Any one who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
Back to the article, which stated:
But like pretty much everything dealing with women's health these days, this has turned into a debate about abortion.
The reason?
Specifically, they're concerned that this could lead to Plan B, or the "morning after pill," being covered by insurers
Indeed, that's something EVERY pro-life person in America should be concerned about. If they force insurance companies to pay for contraceptives, you can bet EC (emergency contraceptives) won't be far behind. Want to know what the MJ article says? They quoted Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council:
The other problem, says Monahan, is abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives — so called morning-after pills — can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of fertilized eggs into a woman's uterus."So those 7 to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent implantation and thereby cause the demise of that baby. So we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients."
And this was MJ's response:
Anti-abortion groups believe that this constitutes abortion, even though medical organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have been clear that this is factually incorrect; pregnancy does not begin until a fertilized egg is implanted.
The medical definition of when pregnancy begins is completely arbitrary. Oh, and if you have any doubt EC causes abortions, this is in the Q & A section of
Plan B One StepHow does Plan B One-Step™ work ?
Plan B One-Step™ is one pill that has a higher dose of levonorgestrel, a hormone found in many birth control pills that healthcare professionals have been prescribing for more than 35 years. Plan B One-Step™ works in a similar way to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step™ will not affect an existing pregnancy.
Similar to an oral contraceptive? Yes of course, but you won't see them blatantly admit that both oral contraceptives and EC can cause early abortions. The last part of that quote is based on ACOG's redefining of when pregnancy begins.
It's political hocus-pocus. Logically, when the egg and sperm combine, a new life is formed, and begins to divide and grow in earnest. EC prevents the implantation of this new life. They could say pregnancy doesn't begin until viability (at or near 24wks), but it wouldn't change the fact that it really begins at conception.
I think that most insurers would prefer paying out for something that can be bought in bulk at a discount, like birth control pills, rather than covering the outrageous medical bills that come with a in-hospital birth, not to mention the prenatal care and the post-natal checkups and vaccinations.
ReplyDeleteThey are talking 'no cost', like not even a
ReplyDeleteco-pay. There are already government programs set up to supply free birth control. The new law is nothing more than forcing the burden of the cost, over to private insurance companies. This is also supposed to include emergency birth control. So the insurance company will have to pay for EC after men and women get drunk and have careless unprotected sex.
They are talking 'no cost', like not even a
ReplyDeleteco-pay.
So?
It's still cheaper than what insurance companies have to fork over when women give birth in hospitals. That's why it's being covered as preventive medicine.
I wasn't aware that being pro-life also meant one had to shill for the insurance conglomerates.
This is also supposed to include emergency birth control. So the insurance company will have to pay for EC after men and women get drunk and have careless unprotected sex.
Gosh! What a scandal!
Why, we should stop this immediately, and instead force couples whom we've already admitted are "careless" to birth the fetus and raise the child. No way that could go wrong, eh?
Why do you constantly insist on playing the inquisitor and standing in judgment on whether other people are morally "worthy" of receiving birth control? It's self-aggrandizing, arrogant, and thoroughly off-putting. Knock it off.
"It's still cheaper than what insurance companies have to fork over when women give birth in hospitals." Perhaps, but that decision should be left to the insurance company, not dictated to them by the government.
ReplyDelete"That's why it's being covered as preventive medicine." No, it's being covered as preventive, because the gov is dictating it to be covered as preventive. Pregnancy is NOT a disease btw.