Kozlowski: Contraception mandate unfair
By: Mark Kozlowski / Columnist
Posted on 19. Feb, 2012 in Opinions
Purchasing contraception is seldom discussed in public. But in the wake of the Department of Health’s mandate that health insurance plans cover contraception, we’re going to hear a lot more about it.
There are several good reasons to oppose this mandate. First, it’s removed any incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop cheap contraceptives since they’re guaranteed consumers at whatever price they charge. It’s also made cheaper generics less attractive — with insurance companies paying the tab, the cost of contraceptives will be hidden from the person buying them. Insurance companies might try to bargain with drug makers, but they might also find it easier to quietly raise everyone’s premiums. And pharmaceuticals have no incentive to spend money developing new contraceptives, as the old ones are guaranteed to sell.
Furthermore, this mandate hasn’t, as some people believe, made birth control free. Somebody’s still going to have to pay the costs, and those costs are going to diffuse. Who will pay? Let’s consider three answers:
1) “We’ll make the evil insurance corporations pay for it!” But where do the evil insurance corporations get their money from, if not from consumers who will pay higher premiums?
2) “Employers will pay for it!” They might, but this makes it more expensive to have people on payroll, so the cost will come out of reduced wages or fewer hires.
3) “The government will pay for it!” But the government has to get money from somewhere. And by the way, making the government pay for things means we need a larger bureaucracy, which doesn’t come cheap.
In short, the mandate only spreads the cost around the economy. This means that the people who use birth control pay less because other people — such as the old, impotent, abstinent and religious — are paying for birth control that they don’t use.
But the most important problem with this mandate is that it’s a fundamental threat to freedom of religion, as complying with the law will require people to violate their beliefs. Obama’s compromise — asking that organizations themselves don’t pay, but their insurers do — is nothing of the sort. Considering that these organizations are paying insurance companies in the first place, this amounts to paying Peter in order to pay Paul, and calling it a concession that you don’t have to pay Paul directly. And the fines paid by those who refuse to comply constitute a beliefs tax — that is, a tax that must be paid because the practitioners of a particular faith refused to bend that faith to the shape the government’s desires.
To those who pooh-pooh this as evidence of nothing more than how out of touch Catholic bishops are, let me ask you this: How would you feel if, say, a President Rick Santorum required all employers to cover psychiatric treatment to “cure” people of homosexuality? I think you would join me in condemning this as ridiculous. You would feel quite angry at having to pay for something that is an affront to your beliefs.
Of course, you might argue that this is a poor analogy, as homosexuality is not a disease that needs to be cured. To which an observant Catholic could respond that neither is pregnancy. Both your beliefs and the beliefs of the guy with the rosary beads are passionately felt. One set might seem more valid to you than the other, but you cannot deny that both exist. And much as you might like to impose your beliefs on somebody by persuasion or legislative fiat, I doubt you would like to have the same done to you.
Now, I understand that contraception can be a matter of public health, is cheaper than abortion (or a lot of unwanted children) and that access to it can be difficult for the poor. But according to the Guttmacher Institute, a center that started as an offshoot of Planned Parenthood, the government spent $1.85 billion on family planning in 2006, and 54 percent of all women in need of publicly subsidized care received it. Publicly funded services are estimated to have prevented 1.94 million unintended pregnancies. So I wonder how much this mandate is really necessary and how much the poor would be helped by an expansion of extant programs. Furthermore, although I think the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception, they have the constitutional right to be as wrong-headed about this as they please. And by this mandate, the government sets a dangerous precedent by which other beliefs can just as easily be attacked.
Contact Mark at MTK14@pitt.edu
26 Responses to “Kozlowski: Contraception mandate unfair”
Leave a Reply
So grossly misinformed.
I went on birth control for health reasons, not because I was worried about getting pregnant. Birth control does more for women than preventing pregnancy.
It can prevent things, such as ovarian cysts, from forming. If ovarian cysts grow large enough, it requires surgery, which could potentially cause early menopause in women thus eliminating their chances of ever getting pregnant. That’s pretty serious to me.
But you wouldn’t know anything about this because from your stance I’d imagine you think every woman on birth control is on it just so they can screw around and never get pregnant. Do some research. Talk to some women. Cannot take anything you said above seriously.
This column is so devoid of reason that it hurts. Honestly, my brain hurts reading such thoughtless word vomit. Does Mr. Kozlowski even know how insurance functions? It doesn’t appear so because he seems surprised that “[s]omebody’s still going to have to pay the costs, and those costs are going to diffuse.” That’s the definition of insurance.
As for the contention that this is an issue of religious liberty, that’s got to be one of the most preposterous lines of argument I have heard in recent political discourse. Contraception is a completely common and uncontroversial medicine and a standard component of nearly every woman’s routine medical treatment. To allow employers to deny any medical care that they have “moral concerns” about is opening a Pandora’s Box. What if a Muslim-owned company wanted to deny all women’s medical coverage? What if unscrupulous companies with eyes toward the bottom line start “morally objecting” to expensive treatments which their employees might need, but which might increase insurance costs and hurt profits?
And lastly, as a tax-paying American citizen, I am forced to give monetary support to an organization (the Federal Government) which refuses to recognize same-sex marriages, employs the death penalty, supports foreign dictators, and started the Iraq War. I find all of these repugnant and morally offensive, but guess what; I was forced to pay, however indirectly, for some of them. That’s a sacrifice we all have to make in order to live in large societies. We are forced to put up things we don’t like, and yes, through our tax dollars, occasionally support them. So all of those “the old, impotent, abstinent and religious” people had better get used to paying for the pill. Unless of course, I can get my Iraq War money back.
A fantastic article Mr. Kozlowski. It is unfortunate that people are so willing to use the government to burden others with the cost of their choices. I don’t think that an abstinent young woman, regardless of religious affiliation, should have to pay higher premiums due to the choices of others. I don’t believe it is fair that a person who strives for excellent health, who is little or no burden to the health care system, should have to pay for the significant costs of others who chose to smoke or not take care of themselves. I don’t believe the federal or state government should even be involved in gay marriage, if they weren’t, everyone could find a minister to marry them without a problem. …unless it’s all about the freedom to get tax benefits more than it is the freedom to get married, then you’re back to a battle of forcing ideology on “the others” depending on which side you come from.
The solution to the problem of being forced to pay for everything the govenment does without your input, is not to attempt to use the system for your benefit and expand federal power. How do you think we found ourselves in Iraq, supporting dictators, and bound to refusing to accept same-sex marriage in the first place? The government continually oversteps its bounds and only by fighting that will you be able to control your life. The solution to your complaints (2011Grad) is to limit the power of the government to the point where society is in possession of a larger chunk of the money. If the government has less money and power, there is less incentive to manipulate that power, and we might actually get societal representation rather than corporate representation. …The only current presidential candidate I see who would likely give back your Iraq War money, allow same sex couples to marry, not support foreign dictators, not start more wars, and leave more money in the pockets of the middle class is Ron Paul.
It’s a shame that people have somehow been convinced they need the burden of a large powerful government in order to live in a large society. That’s not what this country used to be about.
“It is unfortunate that people are so willing to use the government to burden others with the cost of their choices. I don’t think that an abstinent young woman, regardless of religious affiliation, should have to pay higher premiums due to the choices of others. I don’t believe it is fair that a person who strives for excellent health, who is little or no burden to the health care system, should have to pay for the significant costs of others who chose to smoke or not take care of themselves.”
To that comment – I feel sorry that you’re so closed minded to believe that birth control is JUST for pregnancy prevention. News flash – its not. You might want to read up on that before you criticize it.
Also, who are you to force your beliefs on someone else? Choosing to have sex is not comparison to “harmful choices” like smoking as you say as long as you’re safe. Not everyone has to believe that premarital sex is a sin. It’s called freedom of religion for a reason. And what someone chooses to do with their body is their choice. And guess what else, many birth control users are MARRIED WOMEN, not promiscuous girls like you seem to believe. It’s our right to want to protect ourselves against unwanted pregnancy. Because no matter what the stats say, its still one less child who will be aborted.
But here is the problem I have with the argument that the government should be small like it used to be, we were founded on principles which had a limited, invisible government: this was true in a society which was extremely segmented and massive parts of the population were discriminated against. How was this discrimination overturned? Government action. The era of limited government was not so rosy and should not be hailed as some sort of “golden age” of America.
1) The def’n of insurance is to spread around the cost and decrease the risk of catastrophic events (like fire). Since when is buying birth control a catastrophic event? It is in fact voluntary, cheap, and highly predictable.
2) If companies choose to offer insurance that their employees deem unacceptable, they retain the option to not work there.
3) I agree. So your solution is to make everyone pay for an additional government “service” that people object to? And “Mr. Kozlowski” makes a valid point — by supporting this legislation, you open the door to a Pres. Santorum requiring even more objectionable government programs.
This article has some flawed logic. Just because insurance companies will be covering birth control does not mean pharmaceuticals will suddenly stop developing different kinds of birth control. Insurance companies cover plenty of other drugs, and there are nonetheless new kinds, at different price points, still being developed. Also, even if insurance covers a drug, many doctors still will prescribe the cheaper version for various reasons.
Secondly, are there really so many women in need of birth control that this is suddenly going to impose some incredible, astronomical cost on the health system? Probably not. But arguing that this mandate isn’t necessary because the poor already receive substantial financial assistance through clinics is also deeply flawed logic. Birth control can be prohibitively expensive even for our nation’s middle class, particularly for women who, for health reasons, cannot safely be prescribed one of the mere TWO affordable options available to them at health clinics.
Kozlowski also fails to recognize birth control as a prescription that can be used to address other health concerns of women, including ovarian cysts and irregular hormonal cycles. Why shouldn’t Catholic women– and all women– have the ability to afford prescription drugs that address their gender-specific health problems?
There are many points that Kozlowski completely leaves out of his piece. The fact that he wrote the entire article about contraception, without mention of anything relating to women’s rights or women’s health, is astonishing. Conservatives can scream freedom of religion all they want, it doesn’t make them right.
Instead of picking apart the entire thing, I just want to focus on his incredibly insensitive analogy, where he basically equated the “curing” of homosexuality to the reproductive health of women. He at least acknowledges his poor excuse for an analogy by saying: “Of course, you might argue that this is a poor analogy, as homosexuality is not a disease that needs to be cured. To which an observant Catholic could respond that neither is pregnancy.” Swing and a miss. The reason this analogy is terrible, is because it is a Fact that homosexuality cannot be cured, not a different belief. It is not a fact that pregnancy is “not something to be cured.” Equating religious claims with factual claims, especially when making a political argument, is absurd and irresponsible.
Making contraceptives available to women is not imposing anything on anyone. If you don’t want to use them, then don’t use them. Equating religious beliefs to those beliefs based on facts by saying that “you cannot deny that both exist,” is ridiculous as well. Yes, many different belief systems do exist, but since we do not live in a theocracy, we use a secular, fact based reality to make governmental decisions.
By Marks’ own logic, it is a violation of religious freedom that any employer is required to pay the salaries of employees who they know or suspect might be using their paychecks to do things which are against their religious beliefs. After all, if the organization gets to decline to pay for the birth control via insurance company due to religious belief, why can’t it just directly block the employee from buying contraception with their paycheck? Isn’t it equally unfair that they are not allowed to have a say in how their money is used by those they give it to?
Let’s call this what it is: not freedom of religion, but the perceived freedom of some American Christians to refuse to join the rest of us here in the 21st century and I say Christians because the concern about freedom of religion is never framed as a Muslim, Jewish, Santerian, or pagan person’s desire for respect towards their religious belief.
Also, the comparison to funding cures for homosexuality does not work. Contraceptives are a scientifically sound way of preventing the spread of disease and pregnancy. Conversion therapy on the other hand has zero credible scientific evidence for it’s effectiveness and plenty of evidence that it is an actively harmful program that psychologically harms those who undergo it. Comparing something rooted in proven fact which just happens to ruffles the feathers of a few religious leaders to something that has no evidence in its favor, is actively detrimental to the emotional and psychological well-being of the people who undergo it, and is actually rooted in religious practices and run by religious groups thus making it a legitimate violation of the separation of church and state, is ridiculous.
Comparisons shouldn’t be this difficult unless the idea is already so thoroughly awful that no comparison redeems it. Hmm.
While I agree conversion therapy or pray away the “Gay” has some harmful implications, there is NO scientific evidence to conclude that people are born that way.
Your comment is so easily demonstrated as false that I almost soiled myself from laughter when reading it. You can’t be serious, can you?
From the Wikipedia article ‘Homosexuality:’
“Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors.”
I never said it was a choice. There are possible environmental factors that can contribute to the development of homosexuality. People go around and say that it’s 100% biological and hard-wired before birth when there has been no conclusion on it. I acknowledge the possibility of biological. Conversion therapy assumes you can turn someone from gay to straight. It fails because you are going from one extreme to another.
Science is not as black and white as your logic, your usage of the word in your argument is inappropriate. Scientific evidence would never be used to support or dismiss a theory that cannot be tested. Orientation and a persons personal preferences involve way too many possible variables; anyone who makes a statement about orientation using science is simply trying to justify an opinion. That is not science, science should not be a tool for public commentary because people so often do not fully understand it. Much like the author of this article.
I understand you want to answer the question why are people gay? At this time there is no answer(there may never be), scientifically speaking there is nothing more to speak.
That being said; the prevention of STD’s, pregnancy, and the regulation of the menstrual cycle are very scientific and the use of anti contraceptives are SCIENTIFICALLY proven to prevent pregnancy, the spread of STD’s, and can be used to regulate the menstrual cycle.
My opinion: Religious people are more concerned about the actions of others than the actions of themselves. My actions are of only my concern, and my decisions have consequences so I make sure I make positive ones. I prefer this ideology than lying to myself and everyone sitting next to me at church… Fact: The majority catholics use anti-contraceptives.
Curious that my comment is still awaiting moderation, while a liberal comment posted 15 hours later is already approved.
I have posted to this site many times, I believe my comments are now auto-confirmed. I used to have to wait some hours before they were posted.
And lets not forget that birth control is prescribed for reasons OTHER THAN CONTRACEPTION. Does it violate a Catholics beliefs to pay for the treatment of PCOS?
Honestly, pretty pleased with the type of discourse in the comment section. Its good to have a debate without namecalling
Cries of a lack of religious protection are particularly shrill when it is considered who is presently making them. Many Catholic-affiliated organizations are largely funded by the federal government. “Catholic Charities affiliates received a total of nearly $2.9 billion a year from the government in 2010, about 62 percent of its annual revenue of $4.67 billion. Only 3 percent came from churches in the diocese” (NYTimes).
These institutions take secular money to do secular work and hire secular employees. Yet, Church leadership–the bishops whose views are utterly unrepresentative of most Catholics–Catholic women are as likely to engage in extra-marital sex as other Americans, and as likely to use birth control–feel that ‘religious freedom’ should allow them to deprive their employees access to contraception. It’s not a matter of paying for contraception, either: giving birth and associated hospital trips and doctor care are very expensive, and the net effect is that “not providing contraceptive coverage in employee health plans winds up costing employers 15% to 17% more than providing such coverage” (Time).
The specter of cost is a false issue: Catholic agencies, in fact, pay more not to offer their employees contraception. What so disturbs the bishops is that more women will, perhaps, have access to birth control.
I take issue with the author’s attitude towards insurance. The purpose of insurance is to spread cost. I will never develop ovarian cancer or use hormonal birth control, a consequence of my not having ovaries, and I will almost certainly not develop breast cancer. Yet, my insurance premiums cover these costs. Similarly, most women will never use Viagra (a medication used in treating conditions other than erectile dysfunction, like the otherwise-fatal pulmonary hypertension), yet their premiums pay for men who do. This is the purpose of insurance. The author’s suggestion that this is somehow unfair or ought not to be is antithetical to the very notion of insurance coverage.
Pharmacies will generally substitute an available generic for a brand-name drug, unless the prescribing physician specifies otherwise, and the possibility that the disappearance of a slightly higher copay will prompt many women to now ask their doctors specifically for a brand-name medication seems slight.
The author also seems to fundamentally misunderstand the way that drug companies function. Drug companies do not set out to make “cheap” drugs, but instead to make new ones. The patent that a pharmaceutical company receives for new drug allows it to dictate the drug’s price. The tens of thousands of dollars that new cancer treatments cost illustrate this business model. Drug companies are still developing and releasing generic drugs and they will once these regulations take effect. Mylan, a pharmaceutical company based near Pittsburgh, filed an application to release a generic birth control medication in December. Furthermore, the same incentives that motivated drug companies to develop existing methods of birth control will continue to motivate them afterwards. Women will still want a medication that is more effective, or that has less side effects, or that can be taken less frequently.
Finally, the author nonchalantly cited a study finding that 54% of women in need of subsidized birth control received it, and noted that millions of abortions are already averted each year, before wondering who could possibly benefit from expansions of such programs. Are the other 46% of women not worth our concern?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?_r=3&hp=&pagewanted=all
http://moneyland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-free-birth-control-will-not-hike-the-cost-of-your-insurance/
I will not touch upon the topic of your economic reasoning as anything said simply cannot be proven to be true until it has occurred.
However the fact is anti-contraceptives are legal.
Catholics are morally opposed to their use. And they do not want to provide or enable someone to obtain them.
Religious organizations employing citizens are LEGALLY required to provide them with a healthcare plan. A plan which is all inclusive and comparable to private plans.
The conclusion is that anti-contraceptives are both legal and extremely commonly prescribed; individuals who are morally opposed are under no obligation to use them, and can seek alternative providers.
If they pay taxes then they are already funding them as mentioned in the article. Federal grant money is also being used by religious institutions whose practices and morals do not fall inline with many. Simply being in the same health-plan as someone who doesn’t share your beliefs is not discriminatory. However, being denied a service which is entitled to you by the powers of the US constitution because you don’t share the beliefs of your employer is discriminatory.
I wouldn’t say it’s discriminatory. It’s not like they’re saying, “We’re going to provide contraceptives to women, except those with brown hair.” No–they’re saying, “We’re not going to provide contraceptives to anyone because we think it’s wrong. If you want to use contraceptives, that’s your business, but don’t make us pay for it, even indirectly.” Their belief is level across the board. But the contraceptive mandate takes away all avenues that religious employers have to say this. It forces them to comply with something they view as morally wrong.
Access to contraceptives is not guaranteed by the Constitution. However, religious freedom is, and it’s being infringed upon in a very real way here.
A basic understanding of the economics of contraceptives would help in this article. Paying for contraceptives makes it cheaper for everyone involved. Institutions, people, providers. 99% of women use contraceptives. People are not being violated, the leaders with their ancient religious dogma are calling foul play for political reasons. Most Catholics support contraceptives therefore not offering them as a basic healthcare service is violating those individuals’ rights. This is an argument that you Mark Kozlowski and people like Rick Santorum are losing because we don’t live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy.
Explain to me how it is cheaper for me to pay for contraception (through increased insurance premiums) when I do not use them? It makes it cheaper for many USERS because many NON-USERS are forced to pay. No one is trying to ban contraceptives – that liberal talking point is BS. What we do have a problem with is the government forcing a religious institution to pay for or provide something that is against their core moral and religious principles. But since liberals are fine with abortion I guess that issue around morals would be hard to comprehend.
And no, we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. It is the Constitution that protects the Rights of the People (which are granted by God), and provides limited powers to the government, The one clear right is that the government shall make no law abridging the right of freedom of religion. What Obama has done is clearly in contravention of the Constitution.
“The Right of the People”- Because when you pay for contraception you lessen the chances of a pregnancy and the costs associated with one. And a pregnancy is very expensive. In addition, as mentioned earlier contraception is preventative care for problems like ovarian cysts and other non-pregnancy related health issues. Private insurance companies have wanted to provide this in every health plan for years.
And your argument and every “conservative’s” argument about morals has and always will be BS. You don’t have a right to tell a woman how what to do with her body just like you don’t have the right to tell anyone how to live their life in this country (even though you and Rick Santorum and every other religious nut thinks you do).
And religious institutions don’t have to provide contraceptives, but because it is a standard and common preventative health care measure used by 99% of females they’re going to pay for it (like someone mentioned earlier is the case with taxes). As mentioned in another post we can’t have a religious or moral exemption for basic health care. What if some other religion didn’t believe in female doctors or businesses had a “moral” problem providing essential care to anyone in this country? It would violate an individual’s rights to essential care.
The argument that spending money indirectly on something you don’t like as a violation of religious freedom is flat out false. In that case why should I pay for the Iraq war? I never supported it, yet my tax dollars supported it. This is part of living in a society and the church can make all the stink they want to make but they’re just going to have to deal with realities of basic health care in 2012.
I’m surprised at how many people are OK with the idea of the First Amendment being completely trampled upon by this mandate. It is a direct violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, insofar as the government is dictating to churches what they can and can’t think is wrong.
Regardless, I still don’t understand how it is that mandating health insurance companies to cover contraception is providing for “women’s health.” Oral contraceptives are on the World Health Organization’s list of Group 1 Carcinogens–substances known to cause cancer in humans. How exactly does providing carcinogens to women correspond with improving women’s health?
Mike said “You don’t have a right to tell a woman how what to do with her body just like you don’t have the right to tell anyone how to live their life in this country (even though you and Rick Santorum and every other religious nut thinks you do).”
Well Mike, I do have the RIGHT (First Amendment and all that) to TELL you how to live your life. I just don’t have the power to FORCE you to do so. Obama, and liberals like yourself, are attempting to FORCE people to do what you want. Your stance seems just a wee bit hypocritical. And your knee-jerk ad-hominen name-calling attack (religious nut jobs) shows that your mind is as weak as your argument. #LiberalFail
Mike said “You don’t have a right to tell a woman how what to do with her body”
I see that you read Obama’s talking points…..As a point of truth Mike, no one is telling women what to do with their bodies. That is a bald-faced lie and you know it. That’s just more liberal obfuscation of the truth. The real issue is that you and OBAMA are trying to FORCE religious institutions to do something in contravention of their morals, principles, and their PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.