How's about taking your own responsibility, what say? Here's a miraculous thought...Buy a $5 box of handy-dandy contraceptive devices. They're like Saran Wrap for Mr. Blinky. Seriously, why the hell is this even an issue?

Because condoms fail a lot more often than the pill, and are best used in combination with the pill/shot/patch/whichever. Because reduced-price birth control is the only way many women can afford it. Because the pill is also used for health reasons beyond preventing pregnancy. Because more reliable methods for preventing pregnancy lead to fewer children your taxes will help support.

Take your pick. There are plenty of other reasons, too.

Condoms alone when used properly are over 98% effective. Five bucks a box. How much sex do you need to have if you can't afford a box of rubbers?

If the pill is used for health reasons, shouldn't it be prescribed by a doctor? Why specifically force down the price of birth control when my grandmother's heart medication costs an arm and a leg?

There's a method of birth control that is 100% effective and it doesn't cost a dime. It's called keeping your legs shut. No laws need to be passed for that, do they?

The biggest question I have is, if you can't afford a batch of birth control pills, how can you afford to have sex? If the pill fails, with or without the other methods (which has happened), what happens then? Five bucks says I already know the answer.

"Five bucks says I already know the answer."

Nah... At this point in the semester (when I am both unemployed and out of loan money), I'm beginning to wonder if I should have a kid, just for the grant money.

Ford: We usually agree, but I'm afraid we don't on this one. I wouldn't willingly participate in any decision that curtailed sexual activity by college age women <grin>.

Just wondering Truck5Speed, do you also endorse guys keeping it zipped up, as well as women keeping their legs shut? It does take two to do the proverbial dance.

He he he....you got me there, trap. That post conjured up the typical guy in me for sure.

Uh, I think you just answered your own question.

Chasmosaur:

...It does take two to do the proverbial dance.

"Condoms alone when used properly are over 98% effective. Five bucks a box. How much sex do you need to have if you can't afford a box of rubbers?"

The statistic they don't give on the box is how frequently men use them improperly. Who wants to bear a child because of somebody else's clumsiness/carelessness?

"If the pill is used for health reasons, shouldn't it be prescribed by a doctor? Why specifically force down the price of birth control when my grandmother's heart medication costs an arm and a leg?"

The pill is always prescribed by a doctor, regardless of whether it's intended for contraceptive purposes or some other health reason (and yes, contraception is a "health reason"). The government wouldn't be forcing down the price of birth control, it would be allowing drug companies to offer the pill to university health clinics at a discount, which they're happy to do to build brand loyalty. I'm sorry about your grandmother's heart medication, but that's an entirely different issue that has no bearing on the topic at hand.

"There's a method of birth control that is 100% effective and it doesn't cost a dime. It's called keeping your legs shut. No laws need to be passed for that, do they?"

I sincerely doubt that you actually believe people should not have sex unless they want to have a child. I presume you're simply trying to ruffle feathers by tacitly calling women sluts. From this and some other posts of yours I've read, it's clear you're either a misogynistic idiot or a troll. Maybe both.

"The biggest question I have is, if you can't afford a batch of birth control pills, how can you afford to have sex? If the pill fails, with or without the other methods (which has happened), what happens then? Five bucks says I already know the answer."

Most college-age women are not in an ideal financial situation for having kids. You're the first person I've heard make the ludicrous argument that that means they shouldn't be having sex. What it actually means is that THEY SHOULDN'T BE HAVING KIDS. Pretty simple. To answer your question, if the pill fails, some will have abortions, some will give the baby up for adoption, and some will raise the child.

Look, like trapdoor, there is a part of me that wants no part of limiting sexual activity in college-age women. But, there is a rational part of me, too, that recognizes PERSONAL FRICKIN' RESPONSIBILITY.

You screw, you run a risk. Yeah, it's fun. I'll take it over going to the Super Bowl, for crying out loud. But, there is a risk involved if you don't want to have kids. If you truthfully can't afford to have children, you need to take every step possible not to have them, including abstaining from sex if that's what it takes. Simple, can't afford children? Don't make them. You make one, it's your responsibility to handle. It's not the kid's fault that you can't handle raising him.

I can see from your post that anyone that doesn't believe in abortion-on-demand is a "misogynistic idiot or a troll." I can clearly see that you put words in other people's mouths. Example: " I presume you're simply trying to ruffle feathers by tacitly calling women sluts." Really? How so?

Look, I never said to only have sex if you plan to have kids. I said that you should take responsibility, however, if it happens. There's no reason in the world why birth control needs to be discounted by law. If this is really America, drug companies are private firms. They can discount whatever the hell they want to. Macy's can discount jeans if they want to, right? They can do it without discounting jackets, too. If a company wants to offer discounts to gain customers, I see no reason why they can't, unless there's a government regulation that doesn't allow them to do it.

You completely mischaracterize what I'm trying to say. I'm all for "free love" if that's what you want to call it. Go screw your brains out (and your partner's too) if you want. Have at it. In fact, if you want to go and have an orgy that would fill Heinz Field, knock yourself out, and more power to you. Just don't go crying that the big daddy government didn't discount your birth control pills if "a seed is planted," so to speak. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. That's what I'm talking about. P E R S O N A L R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y.

FordTruck5Speed: Clearly you don't understand the issue here.

You said: "There's no reason in the world why birth control needs to be discounted by law. If this is really America, drug companies are private firms. They can discount whatever the hell they want to."

To quote melisma: "The government wouldn't be forcing down the price of birth control, it would be allowing drug companies to offer the pill to university health clinics at a discount, which they're happy to do to build brand loyalty. I'm sorry about your grandmother's heart medication, but that's an entirely different issue that has no bearing on the topic at hand."

Can you read?

Just to make another point in support of melisma and others, the government action that forced the prices up and prevented the drug companies from continuing to offer their discounts was the interference in the market.

If, as I am, you are a libertarian-type Republican (go Ron Paul!) then you prefer to the let the market sort out business situations and keep the government out of it since it almost always makes the situation worse.

The birth control issue is a perfect example of government action gone too far. Prior to the legislation, drug companies freely - of their own choice - offered discounted contraception to clinics, hospitals, and universities. These "clinic" packs were (and are) not as fancy as the packaging on the full price contraception, but it is exactly the same product being offered at a substantial discount.

However, back in 2005, the government decided this free market operation was wrong and chose to force the companies to stop offering the discounted contraception. Let me be perfectly clear about what I mean -- the government decided to restrict the free market operations of the drug companies by passing the Deficit Reduction Act. The drug companies, despite being private firms, can no longer freely offer their products at whatever prices they want -- the government has taken that freedom away. This may still be a country called America, but it's no longer operating according the principles of freedom so many of us cherish.

If the ban on supplying low-cost contraception to university and other clinics were lifted, it would not be forcing drug companies to offer their products at lower rates. Contrariwise, it would be restoring their ability to offer their products at various price points in order to meet the needs of their customers and satisfy their business model.

I've seen quite a bit of misinformation in this thread, and it suggests to me that once again we have people attempting to make policy arguments about subjects on which they are ill-informed. The suggestion, for example, that birth control can be obtained without a prescription, is ludicrous, but it's that kind of misinformation that allows politicians to keep delaying the restoration of market freedom and continue to restrict the right to commerce.

Let me just add, the fact that this all arose out of a Medicare complaint merely confirms to me that we need a lot less of government and not more.

Exactly. And by the way, if any of these people had read the original article, all of this would be perfectly clear. It's not that complicated.

No, I didn't answer my own question.

You advocate - in your words - "keeping your legs shut". That sounds like advice for women to me.

Sure, we can buy condoms, but it can be difficult for us to get the guy to wear them if he doesn't want to. Or if he does, they can tear or even slip off. Hence, the responsible, sexually active girl finds a secondary method of birth control. Birth control pills are the easiest and most reliable option (though, honestly, not a personal favorite of mine).

(I get your vibe on personal responsibility - I'm all for that too. And I'm not trying to be argumentative - I'm honestly trying to figure your position on male vs. female responsibility here.)

So are actually advocating guys being sexually responsible for pregnancy, as well? Because your language makes it *sound* like you expect women to not engage their sexuality at all if they want to be absolutely, positively sure they won't have a child. Are you saying guys will be guys, and it's expected for them to proverbially sow their wild oats, but women shouldn't do the same?

Because you can talk about $5 boxes of condoms all you want. Women's birth control options tend to be more expensive. The pill, spermicidal jelly, diaphragms/caps/shields that have to be used w/ spermicidal jelly - these are all far more expensive than condoms on a regular basis. (I won't even go into IUD's - they are too problematic and probably shouldn't even be considered in late teenaged women.) I have yet to meet a college aged guy who will contribute towards his girlfriend's pill prescription costs.

And that's assuming some men will wear condoms willingly once they and their partners have been tested for VD's/AIDS. I remember one ex-boyfriend from my late-20's who - after we were both tested and clean - felt I should go on the pill (instead of using an alternative form of birth control that was slightly less reliable) so he didn't have to wear condoms. He wanted sex, he didn't want kids, but he didn't want to wear condoms to make absolutely sure we didn't have kids. How is that responsible?

Abstinence is the wrong answer. Affordable, level-playing-field birth control is a better answer. That's all this issue before Congress does - helps level the playing field for young women who don't necessarily have insurance coverage to keep the costs of the pill down. Because both your grandmother's heart medication and birth control pills can cost too much.

cardinalash:

Let me be perfectly clear about what I mean -- the government decided to restrict the free market operations of the drug companies by passing the Deficit Reduction Act. The drug companies, despite being private firms, can no longer freely offer their products at whatever prices they want -- the government has taken that freedom away. This may still be a country called America, but it's no longer operating according the principles of freedom so many of us cherish.
...

I've seen quite a bit of misinformation in this thread, and it suggests to me that once again we have people attempting to make policy arguments about subjects on which they are ill-informed.

Since you're interested in getting the facts straight, I'll point out that the drug companies are still able to set prices for their drugs. However, their contracts with Medicaid require them to sell to Medicaid at the lowest price that they offer to anyone else. So, if they left the prices at college clinics as they had been, they would have taken a substantial loss on all of their Medicaid sales. Previously, college clinics were excepted from the "lowest price" requirement.

The regulation does limit the freedom of the drug companies, but that's part of Medicaid, designed to keep costs low.

I'm right there with you on the less government approach. This is a classic example of the tangled web of entitlements and trying to control costs without directly fixing prices.