Are oral contraceptives healthcare?

Nurses Activism

Published

My fiance is very angry to mandate that oral contraceptives should be paid for by health insurance. I feel it is a woman's right, and it is a medication, in additional to medical uses besides preventing pregnancy. But is it a health care issue to prevent pregnancy, like a medication that treats a disease, such as insulin? Or is that beside the point, because it is a choice? It is a useful medication for the personal choice of deciding when and if a woman will conceive. It will save millions of dollars in healthcare for the cost of unwanted deliveries, illnesses during pregnancy, not to mention the savings for raising children, their healthcare and education. Your respectful opinions are appreciated.

Specializes in Maternal - Child Health.
yes! orals are for the mom/womans health. whether to regulate their periods, or enjoy life and not having babies. why is it part of healthcare.

Its a woman right to govern her own insides, not mine, not the states/country.

No one is arguing a woman's right to utilize birth control, just arguing who is responsible for payment.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

You do not have a right to paid-for contraception. You don't even have a right to health care. (The Catholic church could legally cancel all it's health care policies instead of paying for contraception.) But you DO a have a Constitutional right to religious freedom. This seems like a pretty clear example of a heavy handed government forcing a religion to pay for something that they have consistently preached against. It will never clear the Supreme Court.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Yes, if you use birth control inconsistently, then it doesn't work very well.

Used as directed, which isn't that freaking hard, it works very well - and prevents pregnancies and abortions.

QUOTE]

Side note: Even when used as directed, it doesn't always work....says the mom who took her BCP consistently yet has 2 kiddos. Now I'm on BCP for hormone regulation, which isn't working much better for me than pregnancy prevention. LOL

Up Vote Up Vote ×

1. cargalrn: thank you for the opportunity to offer respectful opinions on this. while i agree with much that has been posted here, i do not think that we have done the work of defining the issues. the question is not whether birth control is healthcare, nor is it whether it is a woman's right, nor is it whether birth control is a good idea or a way to save healthcare costs. the president's recent order that all insurers must provide birth control at no cost does not address any of those issues at all. the issues that his order raises are:

1. does the president of the united states have the legal authority under the constitution of the united states to order a business to offer a product or service at no cost? (moreover, if he or she does have that power, is there anything that he or she is prohibited from ordering citizens to do?)

dear mr. county rat,

please do your homework before you speak. federal funds have been flowing into the states (every state) under title x. what is title x? i am leaving that up to you to find out since i work it every day. if you qualify, on a sliding scale, you will receive birth control free up to 100%! if you pay 100%, a pack of birth control pills cost $3.00. please feel free to call the tulsa city-county health department (918-594-4780) to verify how cheap birth control can be! let's do the math. what does it cost to have a baby and raise a baby? far more than $3.00/month.[color=#333333] [color=#333333]please allow this one reference (there's more out there) as proof that supplying birth control is a "significant determinant" in getting pregnant to avoid having a government pay for the children that will result if the birth control is not made available, especially for the less educated women.[color=#333333]

[color=#333333]references

[color=#333333]pop-eleches, c. (2010). the supply of birth control methods, education, and fertility. journal of human resources, 45(4), 971-997.

2. if providing the ordered product or service violates the conscience or the religious faith of a u.s. citizen, or group of citizens, does the president have the legal authority to compel them to act in a way that violates their sincerely held beliefs?

the president is not "compelling anyone" to act in a way that violates their sincerely held beliefs as i witness everyday that those who do not wish to participate in "birth control practices" are not and will not participate. it does not matter what you want or what i want, people (human nature) will dictate a different behavior, especially the conservatives. no one will ever let this issue become "an issue" because this is the basis of our country. only the political parties allow this to continue.

3. does one person having a right obligate another person to pay to help them enjoy that right?

here is an illustration: is nursing care healthcare? i certainly think it is. do patients have a right to receive nursing care? again, there is no question in my mind that they do. so, let's say that president obama (or any future president) announces that the high cost of healthcare is depriving many sick and injured citizens of their right to nursing care. therefore, he orders all nurses to work one shift each week without being paid for that shift.

1. does a president have the legal authority to give and enforce such an order, or is he or she making laws be decree, like a king or a queen?

my question to you is: are you a nurse?

2. if some nurses refuse, should they be fined, put in jail, lose their licenses, or all three?

are you contemplating what the majority of the country will not address? california is one of the progressive states that mandate patient/nurse ratios making safe nursing care available. what is your solution?

3. does a patient's right to nursing care include an obligation that i have to pay (by mandatory loss of wages) for them to enjoy that right?

so what are you going to do when you're in the hospital? depend on nurses that are paid by your insurance company? what if your insurance company doesn't approve of paying for nursing care for you? then what?

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for that! I LOVE my country, but healthcare, (free or otherwise,) is NOT A right! Nor is education and many other things we in this country have gotten used to. There is a difference between a privilidge and a right, and people forget that. We are so fortunate in this country, people begin to think one is the same as the other. I'm a nurse, so of course, I support good healthcare. Health care insurance is a benefit not mandatory, like your pay. How long until we lose that, because the government forces companies, and they say, "too much hassel"?

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in ICU, PACU, OR.

the preamble to the us constitution states that the government should promote the general welfare of the country. it's a pretty short document, doesn't cover everything, but it does give the people the right to work within the gov't to promote that general welfare. if we the people see the need for something, and that is expressed to the legislative body and it is received and a bill becomes law, then we have worked within the constitutional rights of "we the people".

we don't have a right to drive a car, we don't have a right to own a house, but there are laws that go along with those privileges. we don't have a right to medical care, but we do have laws that protect citizens from that person who infects others (tb), who cuts themselves-harming themselves and potentially harming others (suicide, drunk driving).

so the law encroaches in our lives locally, state-wide and federally, to protect the general welfare of the citizens. the statistics have been collected concerning teen pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies, the unbelievable truth that females have sex outside of marriage, and were delivered to a legislative hearing, the case has been made. obama care has been approved, and now the parsing begins with insurance coverage.

we don't have the right to a job, we don't have the right to insurance...but the general welfare of the people is saying that we do! so here we are. if you want a right-go get a gun-defend your house and home, get a lawyer, say what you want, write for the newspaper, vote, practice whatever religion you want, welcome immigrants to this great country, join the military, put your name on a petition, etc.

[h=4]amendment x[/h]the powers not delegated to the united states by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I have heard mention of how insurance will pay for Viagra so why not birth control.This is apples and oranges.Viagra is a medication for a DISORDER. A disorder that is accepted by all facets of the medical world. It is not the same as someone having a reproductive system that is working perfectly asking for something to make it NOT work perfectly. And to the argument that some women need birth control because they have a problem with their reproductive system and birth control is the cure,if the drug has FDA approval for that purpose and if the Dr. writes the script as such,it WILL be approved as a cure.

This is NOT the same as using it for birth control and it is not framed that way in the medical or insurance world.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

Oral contraceptives could be considered a part of health care, depending specifically upon why they are used. Each insurance company and employer should decide this for themselves, and the government should stay out of it.

The greater problem is that we have become distracted from the real problems by something that is purely political.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Wilderness Medicine, ICU, Adult Ed..

Countrydancer358

I am flattered that you took time to respond to the questions that I posted earlier; however, I clearly owe you an apology. Since your response does not directly address any of the points that I raised, I must not have been clear. Please allow me a chance to try to do a better job, while being as brief as I can:

I asked whether the President has the authority to “order a business to offer a product or service at no cost.” You responded by referencing Title X of the Federal Code. Title X is not a presidential order, nor does it require any business to provide free services. Title X is a law passed by the US Congress that affects what agencies that accept federal funds (like the Tulsa County Health Department that you mention in your post) must provide. I never questioned Congresses authority to pass legislation affecting how recipients of federal funds use those funds (which is what Title X does). I questioned whether the president (not congress) has the authority to order (without congress first passing legislation) citizens who work in private companies (not recipients of federal funds) to provide a particular product or service at no charge.

You also commented on how inexpensive birth control is, and noted that that cost is lower than the cost of healthcare for a woman who is pregnant and delivers her child. I do not know why you made this point, since I never brought the subject up. I am sure that, having read my post carefully, you remember that I said that I was not commenting on the cost, value, or advisability of birth control, only posing questions about whether, in the United States, the Constitution has assigned power to order the provision of birth control by executive command.

You ask if I am a nurse, and the answer is yes, I am a registered nurse, and have been for 30 years. Although you do not ask, it might clarify things if I mention that, in addition to working for a living, I provide free nursing services in three local volunteer agencies. I think that it is desirable for nurses to serve their community by doing volunteer work (i.e., work for which we are not paid) to help underserved and distressed people, when those nurses’ lives allow them to. However, this is not relevant to my post since President Obama did not call for private citizens to volunteer to give goods and services to others, he ordered them to. I wrote no comment about whether what the president ordered is a good or a bad idea, I merely asked whether, in the United States, our elected officials have the legal authority to order us to do what we do to make a living without compensation.

You comment that the president is not “compelling anyone to act against their sincerely held beliefs,” and attempt to make your point by referring to the many people that you see who have access to birth control but do not use it. First, if the president does not intend for his order to be “compelling,” does that mean that the people who work in insurance companies can ignore President Obama’s order with impunity? If so, it would not be an order, it would be a request. I never suggested that the president should not request that people do good and responsible things. However, the president did not request anything; he ordered it. As for individuals not using birth control, I am at a loss to understand how that is relevant to our discussion. People who do this are making a choice. Whether they are making a wise or a foolish choice is an valid question, but it is not a question I posed, so I am not sure how it is relevant to this discussion. The issues I raised in my post were related to the question of whether an elected official has legal authority to issue orders on this issue, not whether what he or she orders is wise or not.

Finally, you ask what I would do if my health insurer did not cover nursing care. My answer is, I would drop their coverage and purchase an insurance policy from another company that was better able to meet my needs. Understanding what my health insurer does and does not cover is my responsibility, so it is my job to make sure that my coverage is adequate for my family and me, just as it is my job to wisely choose the foods we eat, the house we live in, and how we meet our other needs. Again, I am not clear on how this relates to my questions, all of which were related to government authority, not what I or any other citizen can or should do.

Thank you again for your comments. I hope that I have done a better job of expressing myself. I am grateful that we live in a country where people of all opinions can ask questions and discuss them with one another, as you and I have here. It is wonderful to enjoy such freedom, don’t you agree?

Very best wishes to you!

Up Vote Up Vote ×
Specializes in Critical Care.

I asked whether the President has the authority to "order a business to offer a product or service at no cost."

Sorry to butt in, but covering contraception without a co-pay was not a Presidential order, it comes from the Affordable Care Act, a law passed by Congress. The law does not require insurance companies to provide contraception free of charge to people who aren't already paying them for healthcare coverage, it requires that insurance companies not charge an additional cost over what is already being paid for coverage (co-pay).

Up Vote Up Vote ×

It remains to be seen if the Affordable Care Act is even constitutional and the WAY that it was passed is more than suspect.

Lies,deals,threats...................typical Democratic /Chicago Politics as far as I can see. We will see how the court sees it.

Up Vote Up Vote ×

I believe the President way over-stepped his bounds! That is why we have a checks-and-balances system, to avoid this kind of thing. Otherwise, it makes our "president" a dictator, which he seems intent on being. Forcing people to buy government-sponsored health insurance (which congress and government officials, of course, aren't made to buy) and then charging them a penalty if they don't buy it? My hospital offers me health insurance. I take it, because I need it. But, I have the option to decline it, even though it would leave me uninsured. Stupid? Yes, but still my choice as a free citizen of this country. My money, my choice.

The government SHOULD pay more attention to how they spend OUR money, but has no business, right or authority telling a private company what it should do with theirs.

Up Vote Up Vote ×
+ Add a Comment