So, what’s this issue about all employers providing contraception aids all about, anyway?
Let’s just talk about whether it makes sense or not.
First, a couple of appeals to common sense.
Our government is telling us that it’s a health care issue and everyone should have equal access to it. To me, that means protection from disease. Can we be really candid, straightforward and honest here for a few minutes? Do you really think most people are thinking about disease protection when they use contraception? Admittedly, many are, but most people? Really?
I think most people engage in contraception to prevent conception. The name (“contra-ception”) kinda says it all, doesn’t it? So, with apologies to those who really do engage in the practice to prevent disease, can we just move this topic out of the “health care” column and into the “lifestyle” column?
So if this is (predominantly) a “lifestyle” issue, then are we actually talking about a federally-mandated aspect of your lifestyle?
My second appeal to common sense is related to cost. What does contraception really cost? When I was a kid, I found out from an older kid that you had to have a condom if you were going to have sex. Not that I actually understood why, but I nodded knowingly with the rest of my buddies. One of them (less concerned about status than me) asked where you would get one? Our senior kid chuckled as he sagely advised us, “The drugstore, stupid!”
And that’s how it has been for many years. How expensive is contraception, really? Not all that much. Most people can afford it. If you are one of the unfortunate few who really, really can’t afford it, did you know that Planned Parenthood will give it to you for free?
So, in my mind, contraception expenses will hardly break a family budget.
So why in the world is there a need for the government to get involved at all? It isn’t cost. Consider this:
Case 1: Government is not involved. So the cost is like this:
Cost of product ==> What it costs
Case 2: Government is involved. So the cost is like this:
Cost of product + cost to collect taxes + cost for Gov to force availability ==> What it costs
You don’t have to understand the math to get it – Case 2 costs more than Case 1.
Can we agree that reduced cost is not the primary driver here?
Finally, let’s consider the fairness factor. I know many people who don’t engage in contraception. Some are older. Some are trying to grow their families. Some believe it’s a sin and some don’t even have an opinion about it. But all these people have one thing in common, at least to some extent. They pay taxes that are used to subsidize something that they don’t want. Why should anyone be forced to contribute money to a cause they don’t support. Where’s the moral authority to do that? Hint: Check the US Constitution – maybe you can find the clause about this that I missed.
So, in my mind, it isn’t about health and it isn’t about cost? So what is it?
Here’s my conclusion. There are people in our government who care passionately about what they think our health and lifestyle options ought to be. They are working hard to get it implemented and they are using the taxes I paid to promote, implement and sustain their agenda for “health care”.
I could be wrong and I’m not sure, but I don’t think I remember ever having been asked if it was what I wanted. But I do know that I don’t want someone I don’t even know telling what the best options are for me.