<p>Just curious…after BC becomes ‘free’, what is the next item on the list we should demand? I’ll start…let’s demand free and unencumbered access all preventative services. Let’s think big…after all it will be ‘free’. No more charges for colonoscopies, mammograms, lab work, hey, no more charges for skin laser treatments - those are the ultimate preventative.</p>
<p>Right you are. I forgot, we’re just women. Who are we to expect fair, professional treatment at the doctors office?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What does that mean? Do you think women have a collective list we are crossing items off of? If so, I’m not aware of it.</p>
<p>No. RFRA was not overturned by City of Boerne. That case ruled that RFRA did not apply to state or local laws. RFRA still applies to federal laws.</p>
<p>dietz, I don’t even care about it being free. I think it’s for the good of the society that it’s free (as I think many preventative measures and meds should be free as that would reduce overall costs, but that’s for a whole nother thread). What I DO care about is that someone else’s religious doctrine doesn’t interfere with something as essential as insurance. I shouldn’t have to give up work and perhaps lots of money simply because SOMEONE ELSE doesn’t like what that medicine is used for. </p>
<p>Again, as someone else said, I’m deadset against the death penalty. Heck, I’m set against keeping someone who is brain dead artificially alive, but it isn’t my place to make those choices. They shouldn’t have to follow MY morals. All we’re asking for is the same consideration.</p>
<p>“All of those Catholic institutions believe they are following Church teachings and ARE paying for contraception.”</p>
<p>Sadly, not true. Many so-called Catholic institutions, especially colleges, are Catholic in name only. They provide contraception on demand, fund student gay rights groups, and otherwise conduct their affairs in exactly the same manner as secular schools. They are led by dissident Catholics, or marginal Catholics and they do care more about money and prestige than Catholic doctrine. It’s unfortunate that they have made those choices, but those choices do not dictate the decisions made by religious organizations that are striving to follow all Church teachings in their operations.</p>
<p>The compromise takes out the religious issue so the FRFA is not an issue now.</p>
<p>Not really, as I understand it, some Catholic institutions are self insured.</p>
<p>“Why would the religious beliefs of an employer trump a woman’s right to basic health care services?”</p>
<p>They don’t. But, again, a woman’s “right to basic health care services” doesn’t necessarily require the provision of free birth control. </p>
<p>“As we’ve seen offered as an example, many women use bcp for non-contraception related reasons, what about those women?”</p>
<p>Don’t know about other institutions, but ours would cover oral contraceptives prescribed for medical reasons. No big deal, really. </p>
<p>And as I’ve already acknowledged that a distinct minority of oral contraceptives are prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons, it’s unclear why further examples of such use are being provided. The plural of anecdote is not “data.” Or something like that. It remains true, though apparently frustratingly so, that the PRIMARY purpose (and the only one to which the Catholic Church objects, btw) of birth control pills is the prevention of pregnancy.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What?! No! Catholic colleges showing compassion towards a marginalized group that is at a higher risk for depression and suicide? Say it ain’t so!</p>
<p>“Just curious…after BC becomes ‘free’, what is the next item on the list we should demand?”</p>
<p>Prenatal and maternity care?
Don’t bet on it. But free abortions are certainly down the road.
And, in an ultimate irony, so are free “assisted reproduction” techniques. For all of those women used up their fertile years taking advantage of the free birth control pills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet another group of women thrown under the bus.</p>
<p>This is not the group we want making decisions that effect women’s health, including in college.</p>
<p>romani: When I was in the phase of my life where I was taking BC pills, neither DH nor my insurance covered this benefit. And this was a policy through one of the very best companies one could work for. I knew of no one with a $0 copay. So, this is a relatively new demand. Let’s be honest, the out of pocket cost for this medication can, with a bit of planning be either very very low or free. Walgreens, Costco, Wal-Mart offer $4.00 copays for many generics. No one is making a choice for the patient as to whether or not they can or should take this medication. No one is placing a gag order on a physician forbidding them to write a script for this medication. It is a question of whether or not one is ENTITLED to a free product.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not a distinct minority of oral contraceptives being prescribed for non-contraceptive reasons. Really, you need to read up on this instead of just having your emotional reaction because you personally don’t believe in birth control. Anyway, it doesn’t matter if it’s a minority or a majority, really - it’s health care, and there is no difference between that and any other common medication - antibiotics, whatever - in that regard. Again, too darn bad that you don’t personally care for it. That’s irrelevant.</p>
<p>I find it appalling that women’s health needs aren’t important.</p>
<p>dietz, I’ve already said I didn’t ask for it to be free. I asked for it to be covered like any other basic health care.</p>
<p>Dietz, enough with the straw man. No one is asking for it to be free. They are just asking for it to be covered by insurance like any other medication- which might mean the payment of $X in a co-pay.</p>
<p>I think that 14% qualifies as a “distinct minority.”</p>
<p>The most common reason U.S. women use oral contraceptive pills is to prevent pregnancy, but 14% of pill users—1.5 million women—rely on them exclusively for noncontraceptive purposes. The study documenting this finding, “Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills,” by Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, also found that more than half (58%) of all pill users rely on the method, at least in part, for purposes other than pregnancy prevention—meaning that only 42% use the pill exclusively for contraceptive reasons.
The study—based on U.S government data from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG)—revealed that after pregnancy prevention (86%), the most common reasons women use the pill include reducing cramps or menstrual pain (31%); menstrual regulation, which for some women may help prevent migraines and other painful “side effects” of menstruation (28%); treatment of acne (14%); and treatment of endometriosis (4%). Additionally, it found that some 762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.</p>
<p>[Many</a> American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons](<a href=“http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html]Many”>Many American Women Use Birth Control Pills for Noncontraceptive Reasons | Guttmacher Institute)</p>
<p>And, yes, pizzagirl, Obamacare DOES ask that birth control be “free.” Did you miss that part of the mandate? No co-pays, no deductibles. FREE.</p>
<p>
Surprised there are that many women who have never had sex ;)</p>
<p>I don’t intend to be a serious participant in this debate, but thought I’d share. When my mother was about 70-75, I saw a birth control container on her kitchen counter. In answer to my puzzled look, she told me they were for her cat. Apparently birth control pills cure eczema in cats. I did not see that coming.</p>
<p>hayden, that made me laugh. Thanks for sharing :)</p>