The Contraception Debate: Minus the Lameness

There has been much discussion lately regarding the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke scandal in the issue of birth control. Well, this post will not be about that; or more specifically them. I believe that continuing to include Rush, Fluke, and their altercation in the birth control discussion detracts from the entire debate and should be ignored. Limbaugh said some things I’m sure he regrets now. That, people, is essentially what makes him money; saying things that piss allot of people off and losing a few sponsors isn’t really going to hurt him all that much, especially given all the new publicity he is receiving. Fluke got upset at what he said, but it made her famous and the president got to use her for good media coverage via his telephone call. In the end, both sides win and we all lose because we were talking about them and what they said instead of the issue which actually matters.

So, moving on with a rational discussion on the real debate, not what everyone says it’s about. Let’s examine the actual argument and what the president’s mandate is aiming at, as well as the counter arguments laid against it and the pros/cons of a specific example. I’m also going to try and ignore the religious component as that is an entirely different discussion.

The basis of the president’s argument is that women’s contraceptive care should be covered, either by the institutions themselves or by insurance companies. Or in other words, what this really means and how the Right is seeing this issue, women’s contraception should be paid for in some way other than direct monetary transfer by the women themselves. The conversational disconnect I think we are seeing is that the Left is saying “why shouldn’t insurance companies cover contraception?” and the Right is saying “why should someone else have to pay for your contraception?” I aim to bring the two arguments together.

First we need to agree on something. If an insurance company wants to cover contraception, why shouldn’t it? However, no matter what you do, the contraception will have to be paid for by someone, it doesn’t come free. If the government passes a law dictating that a company must provide that service, it will be taken out on others in some way, whether that is through wages, hiring, or some other benefit, it is impossible to prevent this. And let’s face it, nobody can do this freely. If imposed on an insurance company, they will have to raise their premiums, even if only slightly, to make up for the lost money spent on providing those contraceptives. But in the end, the inclusion of this benefit is something that must be decided by employees, companies, and their insurance provider, not the federal government.

This brings us to the second point, “Should someone else have to pay for your contraception?” My answer, Why should they? Is there something in your humanity that absolutely demands that you must have free birth control? How can you justify forcing someone else to support your desire to have sex? Personally, I say that if you can’t afford birth control, either don’t have sex until you can afford it, or live with the consequences of continuing on anyhow. You do not have a right to have as much sex as you want free of consequence. For example, should someone who had unprotected sex with anyone they could find, and then contracts AIDS as a result, get free treatment? Of course not. You did not “need” that sex and thus the consequences of having it anyhow rest firmly on your own shoulders.

Now my opponents will likely bring up the same example that Fluke used in her congressional hearing, and I consider this to be a valid argument, but do we really have all the facts? The example is of a woman who lost one of her ovaries because she could not afford to buy the birth control medicine to prevent cists from on her ovaries. Now, I think we can all agree that this is a tragedy, but was this situation really unpreventable? If in fact this particular woman was at the end of her rope and there was nothing more, within reason, she could do to get that extra $100 a month, then that is indeed a tragedy and discussing that will take much more room then I have here. But are we to believe that there was literally nothing that could be done by this woman to afford her birth control medication? She didn’t have any extraneous bills that she didn’t need to be paying, like a top of the line cell phone plan, expensive internet or cable TV, excessive travel leading to high gas bills, or other expenditures? Could she have perhaps gotten a second part-time job rather than sacrificing these luxuries? Heck, did she have friends or parents who could have helped her pay those bills so she didn’t have to suffer such a serious illness? Now I know some of you are outraged right now, “She shouldn’t have to sacrifice her lifestyle in order afford medical care!” Oh really? Why not? Does she have a right to live as richly as she pleases? Does she have a right to spend as much money as she wants and the rest of us have to pick up the slack? Of course not. If a person has the ability to provide for themselves, without reverting to something illegal like prostitution or organized crime, then it is their responsibility to do so and any failure to make the necessary sacrifices rest squarely on their own heads.