Panel Calling for Free Contraceptive Coverage

This article detailed the recently-accepted plan for preventative services that would be included in the new health care law. The preventative service in question was mandatory, free contraceptive insurance, and the plan and recommendation was accepted Tuesday by Obama administration officials, who hope to act in accordance to the recommendations by August 1, with requirements taking effect in early 2013. The plan would include banning co-payments from contraceptives; free screenings for HIV, domestic violence, gestational diabetes, and cervical cancer; instruction and equipment to promote breastfeeding; coverage for surgical sterlizations; and annual prenatal and preconception care. The report points out that though the panel did not consider cost, “ ‘contraception is highly cost-effective,’ ” especially when “nearly half of all pregnancies in the United States were unintended, and that about 40% of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion.”

I think this new plan is smashing. Apparently, it’s historic too. As the author very persasively quotes: “This document is historic. Before today, guidelines regarding women’s health and preventative care did not exist.” And then the reader realizes any other course of action than to adopt this plan would be crazy. This lack of action, the article hints, is the result of a federal government which has a history of playing it safe when it comes to reproductive health. By virtue of the article’s structure, the reader makes the connection, without the author having to voice it himself, that this might just have to do with our Catholic population, and their influence on governmental policy, despite promises of separation of Church and state. The author creates a climate leading to this thought by quoting or alluding to only Catholic organizations and their stance, or those making statements with Catholics in mind (“But the recommendations immediately reignited debate over the government’s role in reproductive health. Women’s groups and medical professionals applauded the recommendations while the Roman Catholic Church raised strenuous objections”.) Pro-Life spokespeople in the article are directly connected to Catholic groups, and the merely conservative Center for Human Dignity director Jeanne Monahan’s argument is made on behalf of “some people [who] have moral or ethical objections to contraceptives.” And the author uses this technique as leverage, because what right does a religion have to direct procedure? Personally, I agree with him, and thought that he was quite clever for doing so. (Being openly biased while the Affordable Care Act is still in its infancy, and still vulnerable to its outspoken opponents, would just detract support for this new and brilliant plan.) The main points brought up against this measure were strategically chosen, too---they weren’t the usual religiously-based protests, but those formed with a conservative mindset, such as: “...They should not be forced to violate their conscience by paying premiums to health plans that cover these items and services.” I don’t really have enough space for my opinion on this here, but if anyone has anything to say about it, please, start up a discussion. Also, what about its cost? And why is there such a huge controversy over government’s role in reproductive health?

www.nytimes.com/2011/07/20/health/policy/20health.html