Why can't women pay for their own birth control?

I know this sound like the start of some anti women/rant but I honestly don't get why it should publicly funded. Shouldn't it be up to the individual to buy it or not?

It doesn't bother me either way but people act like publicly funded birth control is a matter of life and death.

Update:

thanks for your input Gary but I was hoping for a woman's insight on the matter.

Update 2:

@Gray eagle: thanks for you reply. Don't get me wrong I'm all for sexual freedom, I just don't get why the tax payer should be expected to foot the bill. It's not like a women who can't afford birth control can't just go with out penetrative sex for a while.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Best Answer

    "Shouldn't it be up to the individual to buy it or not?"

    Of course . . . but not everybody has the funds to do so.

    * Surveys show that nearly one in four women with household incomes of less than $75,000 have put off a doctor’s visit for birth control to save money in the past year (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/RecessionFP.pdf )

    * Twenty-nine percent of women report that they have tried to save money by using their method inconsistently (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/CPSW-testimony.pdf )

    * More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom... )

    * Nearly half of women ages 18–34 with household incomes less than $75,000 report they need to delay or limit their childbearing because of economic hardships they’ve experienced in recent years (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/RecessionFP.pdf )

    * When asked the question "Has there ever been a time in your life when the cost of prescription birth control made it difficult for you to consistently use it?", 34% of women surveyed replied "Yes" (and that percentage is even higher in young and poor women): http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/jezebel/2011...

    * Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level; twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion... )

    "It's not like a women who can't afford birth control can't just go with out penetrative sex for a while."

    Setting aside for a moment the implicit claim that abstinence has ever been effective as public policy (hint: it hasn't), let's not forget that many women- myself included- use hormonal birth control for non-contraceptive purposes. I have polycystic ovarian syndrome; if I don't take birth control, I suffer from amenorrhea (lack of menses). No birth control = no menstruation for me. 14% of pill users- more than 1.5 million women- rely on the method for only noncontraceptive purposes, and more than half of pill users, 58%, rely on the method at least in part for purposes other than pregnancy prevention (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/Beyond-Birth-Contro... )

    Hope that helps!

  • 4 years ago

    LOL Dude, dude, dude....as a female & purchaser of condoms I've got to say this is silly.... Now, if a guy wants to whine all over the place about child support I also say silly, for a couple of bucks you could have wrapped it, now you're stuck for 18 years or more... Who pays for birth control & std prevention should be (although lot's of humans are stupid) a copay thing between thems that's getting it on. If an insurance company wants to throw a little in the kitty, great. If not, oh well. On another note, I would truly like to see free birth control for all babby factories on welfare. PS: I honestly believe for the peeps that (((Avocado))) brings up, it should not be called birth control nor marketed as such. What I mean by that is that there is an anti depressant that is covered under pharmacare up here that goes by the name Welbutran or something that sounds like that (my spelling sucks) but an anti smoking aid (not covered) it's called Zyban. So, if that's the issue for people who need the pill for strictly medical purposes, but may also enjoy the benefit of avoiding pregnancy (as peeps suffering from depression on Welbutran & quit smoking) whatever the side benefits, but let's rename it & market it for treatment of specific ailments. No need to argue then.

  • 5 years ago

    ........or people could just not have sex...or as much sex. It sucks, but it doesn't kill you. Generally a good habit. I'm not saying die a virgin, I'm saying if you're not in a good spot to risk having a kid right now, don't have sex OR have it few and far between. Is that so hard?

    Look, I'm horny like everyone else. But getting laid is not a right or privilege. If it happens great. But even if it was your right to have sex, your rights end where someone else's begins. Your sexual activities can hurt other people, if you're not careful. You don't need to be a religious prude to know that. And now the proof is in the pudding with it hurting my wallet.

    I personally think that if someone has never been laid, they don't have to pay it. Why should my taxes go for your condoms. You don't need to reproduce. If you're that poor, you don't need to freaking risk reproducing.

  • 8 years ago

    There is absolutely no reason why women can't pay for the pill other than a cost factor, which can be very, very costly per month if you're not getting it covered for you.

    As a woman I would pay for birth control if I had to and if I wanted to use it and it wasn't covered on my insurance. Men have to pay for condoms and so I guess we could argue over why those aren't free either (although they are in some places!).

    I think it is in the interest of the population to have many kinds of birth control available and some free so that woman can be covered. Unwanted pregnancies, abortions, over-population and many other unfavourable situations are avoided with the provision of birth control and should really be an option for women all around.

    Also, the pill can be a useful tool in aiding some medical conditions and situations and women should have access to that too.

    Like most things in life, I think if you can afford it you should buy it but I don't think that lesser financially able women should be unable to get help with the pill, simply because it is one of those things where by if you don't use it, it can be life altering and sometimes devastating when you don't want children etc...in which case you could also argue the case for and against abstinence etc...

    I guess the whole answer, in a nut-shell if I guess we can pay for it - but should we have to if we are poor? That is perhaps a whole other debate...

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Those who are poor should still have access to it. Nobody should have to constantly pump out kids or be celibate because they're poor (and neither should their husbands or boyfriends have to be celibate). Don't forget, the fact that the pill is taken by the woman doesn't mean it is only the woman "using" it - most couples use birth control because THEY don't want kids - any man who wants to have sex with his wife but not be a father wants birth control too. Should sex be a privilege of those couples that can afford it? And if poor couples can't help but have sex, should we have more poor children grow up on welfare? Better to cover birth control, IMO.

    Also, some women need it for health reasons, so it should be included in their insurance like any other necessary medication.

  • 8 years ago

    Groceries are more necessary but we pay for are own.

    I think the argument for either the government of insurance to pay is that it's cheaper than paying for unwanted kids. If they decide to on that economic reason, I support it. I do not support the general idea that other people should be responsible for the purchase choices of others.

    ~

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The majority of women DO pay for their birth control methods. You made a rash generalization which simply not true. Yes, it is up to the individual. When that individual is poor and has difficulty paying for birth control she has two options, no sex or get birth control. American culture does not wish to deprive any one of their sex life, neither do we want these women burden with unwanted children. So the socially moral thing to do is to provide them with birth control.

    Tax payers are already paying for some to get birth control and have abortions.

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/100432/obama...

  • 8 years ago

    To be fair, I'd rather my taxes pay for birth control than to raise a child of an irresponsible parent.

  • 8 years ago

    we get it for free so u men who think with ur d i c k s don't end up being a daddy...so get down on ur knees n thank ur government for small mercies... o and also we already pay a ton for sanitary crap that we have no choice but to buy.. which costs a bomb... so it works out even really

  • GaryT.
    Lv 4
    8 years ago

    Women want aspects of their lives to be paid by someone else.

    Even the most ardent feminist quickly becomes a shy feminine girl, when the restaurant check hits the table.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.