One of the latest, greatest skirmishes in the ongoing battle over providing Americans access to affordable health care is birth control. The religious right has taken up arms over their "right" to deny health coverage that includes anything that contradicts their moral beliefs, based on religion. Specifically, they are asserting their right to refuse to provide health insurance that includes birth control. Not surprisingly, some courts are finding their stance constitutional. Terrifyingly, the Supreme Court may back them up.
While I am not a proponent of western medicine in general or of birth control pills in particular, I am a huge believer in fairness. Men's health needs are covered. Women's health needs should be covered. Furthermore, using religion as a means to fight against providing everyone access to affordable health care is just, well, sinful.
Ok, then, how can we address this issue?
If the reason the religious right is refusing to provide health care coverage is because it includes access to birth control, why don't we just take 'birth control' out of the equation? Since women take birth control pills for a myriad of reasons*, including lowering the risk of certain cancers, clearing up skin problems, PMS and painful period relief, treating endometriosis, and unwanted hair growth and other problems caused by poycystic ovarian syndrome, drug companies simply need to come out with "new" drugs aimed at treating these symptoms.
Ah, but what about the 86% of birth control pill users who, regardless of other reasons, also take birth control pills for - well, birth control?** Simple! Just look at the above list of symptoms they can seek relief for through the "new" wonder drugs to come. What woman does not experience painful periods, eh?
Isn't this approach fraudulent, you might ask? Also, if the drug causes a woman to be infertile, can the religious right not deny access, regardless of the stated purpose of the drug?
First of all, drug companies have been "reinventing" the same old drugs for "new, breakthrough" purposes for decades.*** Whenever sales dwindle or if a drug proves useless for its intended purpose, they simply come up with a new miraculous use for it, often inventing the "disease" itself, (then give doctors kickbacks and "gifts" for promoting it by handing out generous free samples and prescribing it in place of more tried and true approaches. I believe this is one thing the affordable care act addresses - reducing this sort of medical prescription by ulterior motive routine).
Secondly, whilst drug companies will not be promoting these "new miracle" drugs for birth control, per se, the possibility of a woman's reduced (by about 90%) fertility will be listed where it belongs for this particular drug: in the side effects disclaimer. As such, "birth control" can join the other dreaded possibilities that surely the religious right does not condone, but does not refuse to provide coverage because of, including heart attacks, kidney failure, nervous system disorders, all of which can lead to - yes - death.**** While the religious right is focused on birth control, wouldn't "death control" be a factor in all this? After all, dead people do not reproduce.
Ah, you may be thinking, but the religious right can still argue that since reduced fertility is a possible side effect of these drugs, they can deny access to them. Really? Ok, then the religious right needs to also deny access to the following: anabolic steroids, iodine, thyroid medication, aspirin, ibuprofin, chemotherapy, and certain anti-psychotic drugs. Not only that, coverage for abdominal surgery must be discontinued and alcohol, tobacco, and excessive exercise need to be banned. Also, underwear fit needs to be "tightly" regulated. After all, one possible side effect of all these things is severely reduced fertility. *****
Sounds crazy right? That's because it is. Until the religious right is ready to stand against all of the above causes of "birth control", how can they stand against any? Come on, drug companies, do that thing you do so well: spin us a new treatment!
* http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/features/other-reasons-to-take-the-pill?page=2
** http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html
*** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1369125/
**** http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/10/fda-warns-of-deadly-side-_n_711895.html
***** http://www.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/causemal.htm
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Infertility/pages/causes.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment