In defense of the birth control mandate
Re: “Time to ditch the birth control mandate,” Dec. 14 commentary by Krista Kafer
As an obstetrician/gynecologist practicing in the Denver metro area for the last 30 years, I wish to offer another perspective on the birth control mandate.
Kafer compares birth control prescriptions to those that prevent seizures, cancer or stroke. I would argue that contraceptives occupy a completely different tier of harm prevention, in that they prevent the unwanted conception and birth of a human being. If an individual can’t access contraception, not one, but two lives are tragically impacted.
Secondly, just because women are capable of amazing accomplishments doesn’t mean they can all afford contraception. The recent self-sufficiency index report from the Colorado Center on Law and Policy finds that over 25 percent of Colorado households can’t meet basic costs of food and housing. An IUD costs nearly $1,000. Even $15 per month for birth control pills is unaffordable for those struggling to pay rent or buy food.
Finally, many women experience nonconsensual sex: coercion by a partner, incest or rape. For a woman without contraceptive access, the consequences can be grave: an unwanted child she may be unable to support.
Since the Affordable Care Act began covering all forms of contraception, the rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion have plummeted. This has been one of the most purely positive outcomes of this admittedly flawed legislation. In my opinion, to argue that we should “ditch” this mandate shows a disregard for the realities of life for millions of American women.
Gretchen Frey, MD, Littleton
Krista Kafer did not do enough research to learn that most “pro-life” organizations consider the birth control pills she herself takes to be “abortifacients.” Many of these groups unscientifically categorize hormonal contraception (i.e. Krista’s birth control pills) as abortifacients that they want banned.
She also misunderstands what eliminating the mandate will do. Eliminating the birth control mandate is not about fairness or saving babies. Itap about controlling female sexuality.
Joan Jacobson, Lakewood
Oh, come on, Krista!
You and other successful women can afford the healthy benefits of sex while using birth control products but it sounds as if you think less successful women should be denied assistance to control the size of their families?
Wendy Larsen, Denver
“Time to ditch the birth control mandate”? I suggest that is not the law to be ditched.
Letap start with the law that a corporation is a person which can have and express political opinions and religious beliefs. The judge’s ruling banning enforcement of birth control coverage says that a “person’s” exercise of religion is being burdened by providing that coverage. No person is required to use or not use birth control under the mandate. Corporations and organizations run by sanctimonious people who want to control women’s sexual activity are behind this lawsuit.
Next, letap ditch the idea that somehow a woman’s reproductive system can be isolated from the rest of her body so that health care coverage not covering that system is somehow complete. Birth control measures must be part of a woman’s health care coverage.
Third, letap ditch the idea that these “faith-based” organization are indeed based on “faith.” They are based on sanctimonious attempts to control women’s sexual activity and not on any concepts from the teachings of Jesus or leaders of other religions.
Finally, letap ditch the idea that health insurance must be provided by employers. We need a system which provides health care for our whole society.
Martha J. Karnopp, Aurora
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
