Birth control not health care

Health and Human Services rules concerning forced insurance coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and the “morning after” pill are an abuse of authority. Now that the Catholic bishops and charities and hospitals have helped to get Obama’s affordable health care plan passed, they have been thrown under the bus.

Birth control is not health care! Medical treatment for sickness and accidents is not birth control. Likewise, birth control is not health care. If people who want these services want help paying for them, let them take out separate insurance, but don’t try to call it health care.

This is the beginning stage of a slippery slope. This year, pay for contraceptives, etc. Next come “health-of-the-mother” abortions and whatever can be concocted.

Do not buy into that “pig in a poke” about clarifying accommodations in 2013. Clarify them now! Catholics as voters consistently vote for the winning president. President Obama, a word to the wise is sufficient.

- Mike Sullivan,



  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 3

rationalthinker writes:

You are simply wrong. Birth Control is most certainly health care. Not because I say so, but because the facts say so.

Birth control, especially pharmeceutical birth control reduces the risk and cost of dealing with many issues that some in this world call "female problems". Many forms of birth control, mechanical, surgical and pharmeceutical reduce the risk of and the cost of treating cancers of all sorts. By preventing pregnancies it reduces the risks, costs and complications of issues such as gestational diabetes, genetic disorders and abnormalities and cancers.

The Catholic Church is not being forced "to pay for" a service it is morally against. The truth is, it's insurance costs are if anything lower than they would be if "opt out policies" are premium rated at the actual cost of the risk. That is because the risk to the health care carrier is far lower where birth control is available. If there is any "opt out" provision, it should be contingent upon the instution choosing to opt out of paying for BC coverage paying the enhanced premiums truly reflective of the decision to opt out. Churches and religious institutions already get tax exemptions of questionable nature. Why should they get a financial benefit from a choice to "opt Out" of providing a health care service which beneifts all? Opt out policies, if allowed shouild be recalculated so the premium charged is reflective of the increased risk and increased cost of providing health care to insureds who are part of the "opt out" population. Do that & I am guessing the issue is dropped .

eng42 writes:

Mike, I suggest you read both Dennis Decuir and Terry Welden's letters to see the difference between a well written, well informed letter and your drivel.

speechmom writes:

My 16 year old who is not sexually active has been taking birth control pills for about 3 years now due to extremely painful menstruation. It is health care for her and for many other women and girls.


Featured Promotions