We-Have-To-Pass-It-to-Find-Out-What’s-In-It Fact of the Day

Fifty years after the pill, another birth control revolution may be on the horizon: free contraception for women in the U.S., thanks to the new health care law… A panel of experts advising the government meets in November to begin considering what kind of preventive care for women should be covered at no cost to the patient, as required under President Barack Obama’s overhaul…

But is birth control preventive medicine?

Full article on free birth control under ObamaCare.

Comments (18)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ken says:

    Just what we need. Free birth control.

  2. Bruce says:

    “Free” means you pay for it through you premiums, whether you want it or not.

  3. Vicki says:

    This is an outrageous meddling of government in our personal lives.

  4. Nancy says:

    These every aspect of our lives.

  5. Devon Herrick says:

    This is probably just the tip of the iceberg as far as mandated benefits that are deemed to be preventative. Awhile back I read gingivitis is correlated with heart disease. Before long, teeth cleaning will be a required preventive benefit.

  6. Brian Williams. says:

    If Charles Darwin could have lived to see our day, I wonder if he still would have believed in evolution.

  7. Lizzy says:

    What’s the saying? If you think it’s expensive now, just wait till it’s free!

  8. Erik says:

    Since pregnancy is considered an illness by insurance standards then free birth control is preventative care.

    This is a good idea. It would reduce the need of elective abortions which conservatives should applaud.

    Or would you rather offer welfare assistance to those needy children?

    Or do you simply fine the Father for not supporting his offspring?

    Do we embrace the fetus yet ignore the child?

  9. Tom says:

    Brian: Either that or he would’ve concluded that humans are a maladapted species on their way to extinction. Or maybe humans aren’t animals, but what idiot would say that?

    Eric, let’s break it down:
    If- pregnancy is a disease,
    Then- birth control is the vaccine.
    If- pregnancy is a disease,
    Then- abortion is the cure.
    Maybe I missed something- what part of the “pregnancy is a disease” premise would logically decrease abortions?

  10. Erik says:

    Pregnancy is considered an illness not disease. Now go back and adjust your train of thought. I’ll wait.

  11. Erik says:

    By the way, I think we should fine the pants off any man who does not care for his children.


    We currently only hold the mother morally responsible for abortions. Men are mostly allowed to walk away with no repercussion. Why is that?

  12. Tom says:

    There is no reason to distinguish illness from disease on this matter.

    But let’s do it again with your arbitrary distinction:
    If- pregnancy is an illness,
    Then- birth control is a vaccine.
    If- pregnancy is a illness,
    Then- abortion is the cure.

    Please fix my shortsighted syllogisms and enlighten me as to how the premise “pregnancy is an illness” results in the conclusion “abortions will decrease.”

  13. Virginia says:

    The problem is that the pill isn’t that expensive. It’s about $4.00 a month for the generic version. The others are expensive, but not the basic form. You might as well buy every American a bottle of tylenol while you’re at it.

    Furthermore, here’s a question: Why is birth control available only via prescription? It’s not like it’s that hard to take a pill every night. I doubt anyone would overdose on it. Our puritanical leaders don’t want women to have control of their own reproductive choices. Instead, we’ve got to go through a doctor to get the goodies.

  14. Linda Gorman says:

    Pregnancy is not an illness, it is pregnancy.

    For evidence, consider the fact that medical articles discuss such topics as “illness during pregnancy.”

    The discussion of birth control as “preventive care” is a construct of the philosophical debate over abortion.

  15. Tom says:


    I think you’re a little off on your last point that “birth control as ‘preventive care’ is a construct of the philosophical debate over abortion.”

    I thought birth control was supposed to be the means by which women were given control over their reproductive choices. After this came abortion—another means by which women were given control over their reproductive choices.

    So I think your idea is exactly backwards. It would more correctly read, “abortion as ‘preventive care’ is a construct of the debate over birth control.”

  16. Erik says:

    An illness is temporary, a disease is chronic. Pregnancy is temporary therefore it is an illness (unless you’re Nadia Suleiman).

    As far as treatment, here is an example:

    You can take a flu shot which could prevent a flu virus from infecting you but it does not cure the flu. If you get the flu it has to run its course. It is an illness.


    You can take birth control and prevent a pregnancy and that prevention of pregnancy reduces the need for elective abortions.


    The absence of birth control will lead to higher elective abortion rates.

    There is also the distinction of medical abortions and elective abortions that need to be taken into consideration. It can be that a woman who is religiously opposed to abortion may undergo a medical abortion due to defects or health. So the concept of abortion as preventative care is perverse at best. By definition it occurs after the fact.

  17. Tom says:

    My question: how does the premise “pregnancy is an illness” result in the conclusion “abortions will decrease.”

    Your answer:
    Illness is temporary.
    Illness can be prevented.
    Illness cannot be cured.
    Pregnancy has the above attributes, therefore it is an illness. (A sloppy equivocation at best.)

    Why don’t we use your example to see if your assertion works?
    You said: “You can take a flu shot which could prevent a flu virus from infecting you but it does not cure the flu. If you get the flu it has to run its course. ”

    If your argument is consistent, we should be able to say the same thing about pregnancy: “You can take a *pregnancy* shot which could prevent a *pregnancy* from infecting you but it does not cure the *pregnancy.* If you get the *pregnancy* it has to run its course.”

    Women don’t have to let pregnancy “run it’s course” because they can *drum roll…* have an abortion.

    It seems we’ve found something comparable to a cure for the flu as long we’re following Eric here.

    There is nothing in your premise which results in the conclusion until you smuggle in the presumption that once a woman is with child she cannot terminate the pregnancy. Americans have disproved that fact 50,000,000 times over.

  18. Erik says:

    Are you saying that 100,000 women who take birth control will have the same abortion rate of 100,000 women who do not take birth control?


    Also, in your example having an abortion is letting the pregnancy run its course. It just ends in an abortion. Again with no stigma for the male partner.

    The original question was; wouldn’t you rather want to “prevent” the abortion from occurring? How do you do that? Prevent the pregnancy. What is the easiest most cost effective way? Birth Control Pills.