Amid intense debate over whether religiously affiliated institutions should be required to cover birth control through their insurance providers, Republicans are ignoring the individuals who are at risk of suffering real and tangible impacts from lack of access: virtually all (heterosexual) sexually active women.
Figures show that women’s access to birth control is significantly restricted by high costs. A recent report from The Center for American Progress shows that the high costs of birth control (which can be more than $50 per month, even with insurance) have resulted in 50 percent of women who make less than $75,000 a year not using birth control as directed.
For women without health insurance, birth control pills can cost as much as $850 a year. Aside from the costs to women, it is expensive for insurers not to insure women. It saves costs for employers and insurance companies, too — a 2000 study by the National Business Group on Health shows that employers save 15 to 17 percent in pregnancy and birth-related costs by providing contraceptive coverage.
Especially in such difficult economic times and with the rising costs of healthcare, women cannot afford such a burden on their own. Women in this position who choose not to adopt the highly sexist advice of Foster “Keep An Aspirin Between Your Knees” Friess, deserve to be aided in taking responsible measures to prevent pregnancy. And it is no coincidence that these Right-driven measures to control sexuality fall disproportionately on policing women’s bodies over those of men. Why hasn’t there been a campaign to stop health plans from covering Viagra for unmarried men?
Furthermore, Congress must include women’s voices in this debate. Beyond the framing of the impact on religious institutions, this legislation has a real impact on the lives of individual women who have to live with repercussions to their bodies and finances. California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa recently blocked the testimony of Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, under the grounds that she was “unqualified.” Her proposed testimony told the story of a fellow student and friend who has a condition that requires her to take birth control to prevent ovarian cysts but was denied coverage. Consequently she developed an extremely painful cyst that had to be surgically removed (while paying out of pocket) and developed symptoms of early menopause which put her at risk of cancer, heart disease and osteoporosis. While she is not “better” than sexually active women for needing it for other reasons, there is certainly no compelling reason why the conscience of a religious administrator at Georgetown should be prioritized over alleviating such physical suffering.
Likewise, an employer’s sense of morality should not be legally binding on its employees. In one employment-related 1990 Supreme Court case, conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law that the state is free to regulate.” An employer should never be able to police the options a woman has when she’s making an extremely personal decision of preventing an unwanted pregnancy. The right to contraception has been legally affirmed by a number of Supreme Court cases, and should apply to all women at an individual level regardless of where they are employed.
Regardless of the moral beliefs of religious conservatives, the reality is that human beings are going to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage. Policies that restrict access to contraception will not result in the widespread adoption of strict traditional attitudes on sex, but will instead have devastating consequences. The Republican Party would do well to begin valuing reality, if not women voters.
