<p>
No matter what is wrong with me, H always proposes a cure…:)</p>
<p>
This seems to be taking the rather dim view. SIL didn’t wait until she was 38, but it still took her 5 years and several ai’s before she managed to get pregnant. 3 more years and more ai’s before their D. After that 2 unexpected, and I guess you could say “unplanned” babies :). </p>
<p>I had to laugh at the women at the last APS conference I attended who talked about trying to plan the kids out between post-docs, or in summers between semesters. At that age you consider yourself lucky if you manage to get one on board, let alone schedule it for delivery on May 10 before you have even conceived, lol. But they were physicists, so what can you say? As far as spacing, once you have 2 it’s all over anyways, might as well crank away.</p>
<p>ETA: The church doesn’t approve of her progeny production either. Explain that away.</p>
<p>"“Because, contrary to what we’ve been led to believe, there aren’t many women who WANT contraception who can’t get it.”</p>
<p>Thanks to the evolution of insurance mandates, and with them the evolution of insurance practices."</p>
<p>No. Because condoms are cheap and sold in drugstores, because birth control pills cost less than a cellphone plan (often, considerably less for poor women), and because diaphragms can last for more than a year. Remember, some 99% of sexually active women have used contraception, and there are millions of women who are uninsured and completely unaffected by insurance coverage or mandates.</p>
<p>You can try really hard, but you can’t create a contraception “access” crisis that doesn’t exist.</p>
<p>“This line of reasoning is the same as saying people who are fat want to be fat. Because if they didn’t, they would behave differently.”</p>
<p>It’s an imperfect comparison, because pregnancy has one cause, and obesity may have biochemical roots we only dimly understand. But, yes, clearly there are many people who are overweight who have simply made the choice to consume too many calories and to expend too few. </p>
<p>“And the 16-year-old crying when she sees the positive pregnancy test really, really doesn’t want to be pregnant.”</p>
<p>Probably not. But that’s not a good example, since teen pregnancy rates have actually been decreasing. A better example would be the 23- year old high school dropout who lives with her slacker boyfriend. She might say that her pregnancy was “unintended” if asked by a researcher, but she has made a whole series of choices that might better reveal her preferences: having sex with an unemployed loser who doesn’t want to be a dad (but whom she secretly hopes will change his ways when the baby comes), not using contraception at the time when she got pregnant, not terminating the pregnancy, and not placing the baby for adoption at birth. </p>
<p>You may think that these are very poor choices, and so might the government, but they are choices nonetheless. Again, isn’t the “reproductive rights” movement all about “choice”? Or is it, instead, about helping women to make the choices that upper-middle-class college-educated women would make? You know, get an education, get a great job, and THEN think about having your carefully-spaced two children.</p>
<p>You say “carefully spaced two children” almost as though you’re spitting it out.</p>
<p>Sadly, what claremarie says in post #704 has more than a ring of truth to it:</p>
<p>For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage</p>
<p><a href=“For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage - The New York Times”>For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage - The New York Times;
<p>some quotes:</p>
<p>Amber Strader, 27, was in an on-and-off relationship with a clerk at Sears a few years ago when she found herself pregnant. A former nursing student who now tends bar, Ms. Strader said her boyfriend was so dependent that she had to buy his cigarettes. Marrying him never entered her mind. “It was like living with another kid,” she said.</p>
<p>When a second child, with a new boyfriend, followed three years later — her birth control failed, she said — her boyfriend, a part-time house painter, was reluctant to wed. </p>
<p>Today, neither of Ms. Strader’s pregnancies left her thinking she should marry to avoid stigma. Like other women interviewed here, she described her children as largely unplanned, a byproduct of uncommitted relationships. </p>
<p>Others noted that if they married, their official household income would rise, which could cost them government benefits like food stamps and child care.</p>
<p>and:
Reviewing the academic literature, Susan L. Brown of Bowling Green State University recently found that children born to married couples, on average, “experience better education, social, cognitive and behavioral outcomes.”</p>
<p>Lisa Mercado, an unmarried mother in Lorain, would not be surprised by that. Between nursing classes and an all-night job at a gas station, she rarely sees her 6-year-old daughter, who is left with a rotating cast of relatives. The girl’s father has other children and rarely lends a hand. </p>
<p>This is/will be changing our society in a big way. It can’t be good.</p>
<p>You know antibiotics are (mostly) cheap. There is not an <em>access crisis</em> but I am pretty sure that if insurance companies quit covering them there would a huge outcry. Moreover, if a large employer decided that taking antibiotics was immoral or against his religion - he would not be allowed to eliminate coverage.</p>
<p>As for contraception, there are tons of choices and that is good. Like antibiotics, some are cheap and some are very expensive. Not every option is the correct option for every woman or couple. I would prefer that the decision be made by a woman and her physician than my US Senator.</p>
<p>Forget religion. Contraception is health care. If you are an employer who is going to offer healthcare then do it. Quit make exceptions based on your own personal bias or <em>morality</em>.</p>
<p>As mini pointed out, contraception is already widely available and offered through most health plans by “choice.” Every woman in America can obtain some form of birth control right now, one way or another. So why are we trying to force no-pay coverage on everyone by federal law, when 33% of Catholics and 28% of women do not support it? It seems a controversy has been created where none needed to exist.</p>
<p>I started taking bc nearly 30 years ago for a 7-year stint (even though I’m only 29 now, of course ;)). There was no problem with “access” then, so I’m finding it really a stretch to believe there is some massive access problem for women now. Especially one that has only been brought to light by the HHS mandate. </p>
<p>And aren’t there shots that last for 3 months or even something that lasts for 5 years?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So two out of three Catholics and three out of four women do support it. That seems like an argument for passing the law to me.</p>
<p>No one is being forced to use the contraception. People have to pay for things they don’t support all the time. Why is contraception so different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, they have been thanks to better education and access to birth control. However, the teen pregnancy rate is still far too high at approx 20%. There is a lot of work to be done.</p>
<p>The reproductive rights movement is about choice. Including the choice not to be become pregnant by making it as easy as possible for that to happen. There are still plenty of hurdles for many women (cue the mocking of women who have to take multiple buses, days off of work, etc.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Children being born out of wedlock is not automatically a bad thing. I think of the children I know from gay and lesbian families who are deeply wanted and planned for, yet they count as being born out of wedlock. So far the research is showing that these children do just as well, if not better, than their peers being raised by straight, legally married couples.</p>
<p>To drag poor Sweden back into the discussion, the majority of children there are born out of wedlock but to co-cohabitating couples. They are doing well. </p>
<p>In other words, I don’t think marriage in and of itself is the cure all for childhood problems. There are other solutions out there. That’s one of the reasons I consider myself pro-choice, it’s because I don’t think women should be punished financially for choosing to have the child. There should be better supports in place for women who make that choice.</p>
<p>Contraception is different from war because it isn’t necessary for our national defense.</p>
<p>I agree with clairemarie and a few others upthread that there is a large segment of our young population (not the cc, going to college, getting a career and professional life crowd) for whom having children young, unmarried and with different fathers is accepted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really?..[sigh]</p>
<p>Yes, really. That the Bishops and their ilk have declared contraception to be different doesn’t make it so.</p>
<p>Contraceptives are widely available thanks to Planned Parenthood, the leading abortion prevention organization in the country. </p>
<p>I know lots of people who oppose vaccination; believe that anti-cancer drugs actually cause death, and think that HIV/AIDS represent the wrath of God and shouldn’t be treated. So?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand what the principle is supposed to be here, but let’s take a different example. How about the death penalty? Catholic teachings oppose capital punishment. Why does a good Catholic have to pay taxes to pay for prisoners to be killed by the Federal government, and her state government if she lives in Texas? What’s the rule for this proposed conscience exemption, where a person or a company doesn’t have to obey the law if they say it violates their religion?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because it has to do with (GASP) S-E-X.</p>
<p>I’ve read the argument that because BC is not lifesaving, it shouldn’t be covered. There are many medicines and procedures which are covered which are not necessary to preserve life, but are nonetheless considered basic health care.</p>
<p>I don’t have a problem with dropping the “free” part of the contraceptive care, but it definitely should be a required coverage with co-pay.</p>
<p>Bay, are you saying that with this contraception mandate, no woman will use more effective contraception, and no woman will use contraception who wouldn’t have absent the mandate, so the only difference will be that women don’t have to pay for their prescription contraception out of pocket? That, you think, will be the only difference?</p>
<p>I just don’t see how that could possibly be true on the margin. You’d be saying that financial incentives have no effect.</p>
<p>
Not to derail, but I would like to mention that in some areas, large supermarket chains provide antibiotics at no cost to the customer when their prescriptions are filled at the supermarket’s pharmacy. It’s not always publicized, though, so it’s good to ask.</p>
<p>
I think the principle is what one thinks is the proper role of the federal government. National defense, yes. Birth control, no.</p>