WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?
• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).[1]
• Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.[2]
• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.[3]
WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?
• Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.[2]
• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method.[2]
• Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.[2]
• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.[2]
• Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.[2]
WHO PAYS FOR CONTRACEPTION?
• One-quarter of the more than 20 million American women who obtain contraceptive services from a medical provider receive care from a publicly funded family planning clinic.[5]
• In 2008, 7.2 million women, including 1.8 million teenagers, received contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States.[5]
• Federal employees are guaranteed insurance coverage for contraceptives.[6]
• Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives, which is three times the proportion that did so just a decade ago.[7]
• Twenty-seven states now have laws in place requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs in general to provide coverage for the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.[8]
Every insurance policy I’ve had covers contraception. I don’t why people have such a problem with people wanting to have control over the size of THEIR family, not the government or insurance companies’ families. There are plenty of things covered by insurance plans I’ve been on that I personallydon’t believe in. I for one don’t want to have my money going towards little blue pills for men or to doctors playing God making babies. Sorry, if the latter offends anyone. However, I’ve worked at an IVF Institute and Sperm Bank. Some of the “creative” ways of making babies made me sick. I had to leave that job. I just couldn’t believe some of the stuff that was going on. They were the first place do “micro-sort” which is sorting of the sperm so the woman is only inseminated with the sex of the couples choice. Really? Do you want a healthy baby or designer baby?
Is IVF even covered by insurance? Contraception wasn’t as routine before the 2000s as it is now and I think it is good that it is there.
I think erectile dysfunction is every bit a real disease and should be treated as such. Now do I want to pay for it for people in prison? No. But there is a safety reason involved there. Other than that, within reason, I am willing to pay for Viagara etc with no questions asked, as long as no one is trying to keep contraception from women and as long as comparable enhancements are provided for women if needed.
It just dawned on me that is insurance is paying, we aren’t. Paying out of pocket, I don’t even resent that. It is what it is.
Count me as “I don’t get it” I understand that very, very few women are having any trouble at all getting birth control, if not through their insurance then through family planning, Planned Paranthood, the military or County health departments. I also understand the utopian view that everybody should have everything equally regardless of their economic standing, but here we are not talking about free “welfare”, we are talking about insurance being provided to employees of the Church. Or are we since Ms Fluk’s demand is not for access but about it being provided for free by a mainline Church that is fundementally opposed to it. With deductables its not free to me or mine or most of us, so I must be missing the point of contention. Worse, I do not understand why the utopians cannot see that free (if that is the issue and not access) cannot also see that free or via a governmental mandate in exchange for a tresspassing on a fundemental freedom (of religion) is much more dangerous, given the easy and subsidized access to all. I do not imagine that the Russian or Chinese “serfs” cared as much for freedom as they did for free, but that is not what America is about, and it is the loss of Russian/Chineses freedom (religous and otherwise) that came later in bits and pieces that we need to be (are) concerned with here. It is not for us here on this blog to define the scope of the Church’s ministry and what structures it employees to finance and deliver that ministry. I do not understand why the Administration took this on and refused to grant the Church a waiver, as they have to so many unions and other groups. I view this as one of those Dutch boy in the dike things. The Government’s demand for Church sponsorship of birth control to its employees is a singular test of religous freedom in America. I get that. That is a freedom I am willing to argue for and defend while asking those adversely affected employees – only a sub-set of who really care about this, to buy supplemental insurance if that be their desire. Wait a new business opportunity or maybe the government should just make it free for everyone. OMG, I am back to Ms Fluk.
Ms. Fluke wants contraception to be part of the health care plan. The owners of her University do not.
Most Americans feel contraception should be part of the rx plan of one’s health insurance.
Utopia has nothing to do with it. I don’t even care if it is totally free or not. I think if we have a national health care plan, there should be access for all. Level playing field unless I want to pay for better.
What is the reason for prescription contraception coverage – which is not available in all plans?
Contraception is considered preventive medicine – in order to reduce the costs of an unwanted pregnancy. There are many mandates to health insurance – many of them are preventive medicine – childhood immunizations, mammograms, pap smears, PSA testing, Colon cancer screening, etc. What is the difference between PSA testing and Contraception (from a preventive medicine point of view)? Sure there is separation of Church and State – but when a religious organization enters into the realm of non religious business entities – does it still retain the right of its religious beliefs? In the current proposal, Churches are exempt from having to provide coverage – it is the other businesses – hospitals, book publishers, schools, etc that are being required to provide the coverage. Should they also be able to refuse to participate in other mandates – like SS payments, medicare or unemployment insurance?
Should Islamic banks or Lutheran investment trusts be able to skirt financial laws and regulations due to religious freedom – I think not.
There are many items offered in Health Insurance, that many of us will never need – but that is comprehensive insurance – I cannot opt out of pieces are parts of my employers plan. We need to get away from this me me me thing, and remember the reason’s why things like health insurance were created in the first place.
Nothing in the proposal says that the members of the Church need to use the contraceptives.
I agree, Pat.
Go Pat!
True, Pat.
Pat said:
Isn’t this what drives the entire health care reform package? If everyone pays in, and everyone doesn’t use everything, it will be self sustaining.
I promise you all, I haven’t used anything having to do with male parts, but I have sure been paying for them.