iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Cecile Richards

GET UPDATES FROM Cecile Richards

Birth Control You Can Afford -- It's About Time!

Posted: 08/03/11 03:11 PM ET

A young woman named Gabby -- a fellow Texan -- wrote to me from her home in Austin to tell me that she recently had to choose between paying for her birth control and getting her car repaired. Actually, for Gabby, there was no choice at all. Without the car, she can't make a living. So she did what she had to do. She skipped her shot of Depo -- a long-acting contraceptive -- paid the mechanic, and took her chances.

That's a gamble no woman should have to take.

But hey -- the great news is that on Monday, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a valentine to women across America. Under the Affordable Care Act, women's preventive care will be covered with no co-pays -- and this includes birth control.

This is extraordinary news that will provide millions of women who will soon have insurance the ability to get the birth control that today they may not be able to afford. So Gabby, and millions of women like her, won't be choosing between birth control and car repairs.

There are 34 million reasons that this new policy is a good one -- that's the number of women will have access to birth control without co-pays come 2013. But today -- here's my Top Ten.

WHY BIRTH CONTROL WITH NO CO-PAYS IS A GREAT THING!

10. Everyone uses it! Ninety-nine percent of sexually active women in America have used it to prevent unintended pregnancy.

9. Birth control does lots of good things for women, in addition to helping them plan their families! Some forms of birth control are used to prevent anemia and endometriosis, and can help prevent ovarian and endometrial cancers.

8. Too many women in the U.S. have unintended pregnancies, and a big part of it is lack of access to birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancy among the world's most developed countries, and half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned.

7. Birth control can be expensive! Even with insurance, many women end up paying $50 a month for birth control pills, and much more for longer-acting methods like the IUD. More than half of women in the U.S. between ages 18 and 34 say the cost of birth control has made it harder for them to use it consistently.

6. It's good for the budget! Today, unintended pregnancy costs the U.S. taxpayers $11 billion a year. For every $1 we invest in making birth control accessible, taxpayers save nearly $4 in the costs of unintended pregnancy.

5. Birth control access in the U.S. is unequal -- just like health care access -- and it's time that every woman had the ability to plan when to have children. For example, nearly 60 percent of young adult Latina women and more than half of young adult African-American women have struggled to pay for prescription birth control.

4. Affordable birth control means better birth control. When cost is not a concern, women are more likely to choose more effective birth control methods. Imagine -- making your birth control decision based on what fits you rather than what fits your wallet!

3. Women with unintended pregnancies may end up with less education, earn less, and have a harder time supporting their families. Their children may be less likely to finish high school.

2. And it's not just birth control! The announcement by HHS also includes coverage without co-pays for cervical cancer and HPV screenings, counseling and screening for HIV, counseling for STDs, and other important preventive care.

And the #1 Reason: No woman in America should ever have to choose between groceries and birth control again!

Planned Parenthood has been the leading provider of birth control services and education in America for 95 years, and we celebrate this historic step forward for a basic American value -- the ability to plan your family.

HHS is also taking comments on this new ruling for the next 60 days, and it is weighing the inclusion of a "refusal clause" that would allow some religious employers to deny women access to this vital preventive health care. This move could keep many women from getting coverage for birth control -- simply because their employer doesn't believe in it.

Now is the time to let HHS know that we fully support their decision to help ALL American women have better access to preventive care, and that ALL women, regardless of their employer or insurer, should have timely access to affordable birth control if they want it or need it.

Visit this link for more information and to make your voice heard.

What are your top reasons that affordable birth control makes sense for women and for America? Now's the time. Speak up and let HHS know that Birth Control Matters!

 

Follow Cecile Richards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cecilerichards

A young woman named Gabby -- a fellow Texan -- wrote to me from her home in Austin to tell me that she recently had to choose between paying for her birth control and getting her car repaired. Actual...
A young woman named Gabby -- a fellow Texan -- wrote to me from her home in Austin to tell me that she recently had to choose between paying for her birth control and getting her car repaired. Actual...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 770
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
10:14 PM on 08/08/2011
God forbid anyone should have to skip sex for a few weeks! Gandhi lived 100% celibate (as a married man) for the last 42 years of his life, and Michelangelo was a lifelong virgin, but my heart just aches for the poor couple who was deprived of sex for a few weeks because they didn't get birth control on someone else's dime. Is this USA 2011 or Brave New World? Aldous Huxley- you were one prescient individual.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
12:45 AM on 08/09/2011
Michelangelo was gay.
01:43 PM on 08/09/2011
His paintings indicate a sexual ATTRACTION to men, but every credible source indicates that his attractions never went beyond that; he was committed to self-abnegation in every aspect of his life. Newton, Tesla, Swedenbourg, and Kierkegaard were also famous celibates, with Tesla actually professing part of his genius to derive from his lack of sexual indulgence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
02:25 AM on 08/09/2011
You're right, John. Convince all the men you know that the right thing for them to do is give up sex and the whole problem will be solved.
01:53 PM on 08/09/2011
Hey, I'm with you. If it was up to a lot of women in relationships, birth control wouldn't even be necessary; many are cognizant that the strength of the union on a nonphysical level defines true love. It's the men who can't seem to grasp the fact that sex and love really don't have much to do with one another. Our language reflects this discrepancy in outlooks: the expression "make love" has been sadly perverted from that of "verbal courtship" to "sex". Women identify more with the original defintion, men with the second.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rh1037
02:32 PM on 08/07/2011
If it was this easy for President Obama to declare that insurance companies have to provide birth control for free, why hasn't he used this sort of Executive power to push alot of other progressive policies?
07:11 PM on 08/07/2011
Because he's (unfortunately) the President, not the Emperor - or King!
10:47 PM on 08/07/2011
This is a joke question right?
photo
IdeatoEmpire
Let's have a retirement party for 535
01:03 PM on 08/07/2011
Whatever additional costs we pay in premiums and taxes is far far less than we would pay for the problems that occur when children are born to parent unprepared to have them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Raging Cajun
02:24 AM on 08/07/2011
I think most of you are missing the point. Nothing is free. Everything has a price. There are things we pay for directly (out of pocket) and things we pay for indirectly (having the government pay, or our employers, or businesses). These things are not free because the government gets money from taxing us, employers who pay for insurance get the money by paying you a lower hourly wage to recoup the costs, and corporations cover the costs of corporate taxes by charging more for products and services. I am not saying that any of this is wrong. What I believe is that we have to be intellectually honest. If we want a benefit we need to be upfront and figure out how much it will cost and pay for it. I do not have a problem with insurance covering birth control as it is cheaper than a child. I do not have a problem with preventative care becoming more available as it can be cheaper than treating a disease. Lets not kid ourselves and pretend the services we want and need are not going to cost us anything.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
03:42 AM on 08/07/2011
I don't think anybody was kidding themselves that preventative care had no costs, but rather stating that in this case, as you note yourself, it's cheaper for society as a whole to shift from paying high cost prenatal and delivery for a few to birth control for the many.

Women are saying that it's about time their medical insurance, which they buy with their own money or earn through their own employment, recognizes that there is 'woman only' preventative care which should be included. Women are well aware of the outrageous cost of insurance -- they PAY those premiums. They would just like to have a reasonable percentage of those premiums returned in the form of coverage for the things they actually need.

The ones claiming the prescriptions would be 'free' were the men, who ignored that we were talking about private insurance purchased by individuals and kept insisting the taxpayer would have to pay. Men who claimed since women didn't 'need' to have sex they didn't 'need' birth control because 'pregnancy isn't a disease'. It makes no sense at all to me for men to insist they should be able to censor the coverage women buy from private insurance companies on the basis that men don't think women should be having sex. The only reason women NEED birth control is because the sex they are having includes men. Provision of birth control protects BOTH a man and a woman from unwanted pregnancy, can't get more fair than that.
09:12 AM on 08/07/2011
But, we all ALL pay for it with increased premiums. Somehow, they will recoup the costs from higher premiums. Yup, those big, bad, mean insurance companies will pass the costs along to all of us. Just like big oil, the satellite or cable provider, the corporate grocery store, big pharma, those big, bad car companies, the liquor store owner, the rock stars, the movie stars, the movie theaters, the local independent pet supply store owner, etc. You get the idea. Face it. We, the consumer, are at the bottom of the "food" chain. Everybody along the way has to make a profit so they can open their doors the next business day. Its called Capitalism. And it works if it will be allowed to.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
09:25 PM on 08/05/2011
In response to 'this is unfair because it's all for women" was finally able to track down the list of preventative care that must now be provided without copays:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/about/provisions/services/lists.html

Note that it includes for men or both men and women the following:
•Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm one-time screening for men of specified ages who have ever smoked
•Alcohol Misuse screening and counseling
•Aspirin use for men and women of certain ages
•Blood Pressure screening for all adults
•Cholesterol screening for adults of certain ages or at higher risk
•Colorectal Cancer screening for adults over 50
•Depression screening for adults
•Type 2 Diabetes screening for adults with high blood pressure
•Diet counseling for adults at higher risk for chronic disease
•HIV screening for all adults at higher risk
•Immunizations
•Obesity screening and counseling for all adults
•Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) prevention counseling for adults at higher risk
•Tobacco Use screening for all adults and cessation interventions for tobacco users
•Syphilis screening for all adults at higher risk
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
11:19 PM on 08/05/2011
Yes I have been saying this, it is NOT all for women, but thanks for researching this list. It's not a cure for misogyny, but I hope it helps educate those who are educable.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EthnicHeart
11:37 PM on 08/05/2011
Thanks for all your posts. F&F. Lots of misogyny here, and by the way - James McParland is Michael Steele. Interesting, no?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
11:51 PM on 08/05/2011
I particularly noticed the various expensive stop-smoking prescriptions and devices were going to be provided with no copay, because getting people to stop smoking paid off over the long run for both the insurance company and society in general with less money going to treat smoking related diseases, even though "all smokers have to do to quit is have some personal responsibility and not light the cigarette".
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EthnicHeart
11:50 PM on 08/05/2011
Many thanks F&F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Earn Instead of Take
"Laziness may appear attractive, but work gives sa
02:30 PM on 08/05/2011
As a man, I honestly don't mind this move at all. Furthermore, I'm not exactly sure why ED medications are covered by insurance. I guess it's the bigger picture that frustrates me. Not a matter of whether or not one could afford birth control, but rather the actions of intelligent, responsible couples versus unintelligent, irresponsible couples. The former, despite putting themselves in a better position to financially support future children, tend to wait so that they are 100% certain that their support will be sustainable. And the latter... well, who the hell care if they get pregnant before planning for it, because the right of us can pay the welfare, right?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
03:01 PM on 08/05/2011
Which is why you should be overjoyed. Do you really think unintelligent, irresponsible couples should be bringing an innocent and totally dependent child into the world? Doesn't that happen far too often?
Do not conflate those who legitimately wish to use contraception and be responsible, but face financial barriers with irresponsible breeders.
04:45 PM on 08/04/2011
I can't believe how many people think this is a bad thing. Do you know how many times I've had to stand in the pharmacy line and pay $70 (yes. $70) for a birth control pack and watch the guy in front of me get Viagra for six bucks? Do you know understand what it's like to see women my age attempt to be educated and independent, but have to choose between groceries or birth control because we can't have both? But most ED medications are covered? This isn't about poor people, it's about women. Birth control allows women the freedom to choose their adult path, whether that includes motherhood today, tomorrow or never. This news almost made me cry in happiness, and no, I don't have to "control my urges". I should have a choice, and I choose not to get pregnant today. I choose to go to grad school and have a job that will support me without worrying about whether I'll be an unfit mother at 25. I think this is great, for those naysayers, think about all of us who this saves.
kmd4excel
A reality check for progressives
08:51 PM on 08/04/2011
Well, latina, I have just one question for you: Why should anyone ELSE have to pay for YOUR choices? Just asking...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
09:38 PM on 08/04/2011
SHE is paying for her insurance with HER money. Considering that policies cost thousands of dollars annually, there isn't any need for anybody else to chip in toward the minor costs of preventative care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cafebeege
12:52 AM on 08/05/2011
kmd4excel......latina is making the same point I made earlier here. If people are screaming about "subsidizing" birth control and someone else's sex life (birth control pills are used for many medical problems too though), then how come they are not screaming about insurance paying for Viagra, etc. Insurance has always covered that since it was invented. (As far as I know that isn't used for anything other than sex either.).
11:48 AM on 08/05/2011
Latina I agree with you, issues in society is that protections too expensive. As a college student Ive a hard time paying for it but for me I needed it for medical reasons. Id be glad to not pay a huge fee (mines $40 every 3 mos with only 7 hrs/wk at 7.50hr makes it tough to keep up) I'm certain some are thanking God for it. Pretty sure those that nay say about it are ones that either have the luxury to not pay any fees for meds or liberals. Is it wrong to want to protect yourself against possible pregnancy? With the big ordeals on abortion I think its a wonderful idea for a woman to protect herself so she's not dealing with an unwanted baby. If they want to gripe about it, fine set a limit how long it stays free, give it 10 years depending on the person. After 10 or so years charge for it but allow those that cant afford it get the chance. It wont kill society. It'll just prevent the unwanted children that are stuck in foster care or orphanages the chance to grow up and get into congress so that we can have a real economy and government based on experience, history of hardships and the yearning for better rather than the 80-90 year old's in their seats that fall asleep, cant hear, or are stuck in the "old ways" that they wont budge on change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
03:04 PM on 08/05/2011
I started to fan you, dear... but you lost me at "liberals." Before you start labeling, I suggest you learn what the labels mean. Liberals are not the ones who oppose the coverage of contraceptives by insurance companies and trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Those 'naysayers' are of another political stripe.
04:37 PM on 08/04/2011
The purpose of insurance is to protect people against unexpected, unaffordable expenses. It's just as silly to celebrate an insurance mandate for an affordable, routine prescription as it would be to mandate that this woman's car repairs be taxpayer subsidized. According to a web site, "the cost for your quarterly injection ranges between $30 and $75." There is absolutely no reason why anyone can't pay for that themselves, without reaching into the taxpayers' pockets. $10 a month? Ain't noone so poor that they can't afford to pay that themselves.

And is this woman so pitiable that she can't say to her SO, "hey, honey, I need you to pay for the birth control". Or maybe "tonight would be a bad night". Or "gotta wrap that rascal."

Please. There is absolutely no reason for the taxpayers to be subsidizing this woman's bedroom activities.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
05:52 PM on 08/04/2011
Taxpayers aren't subsidizing anything. This is insurance that these women pay premiums for. They will now have important women's preventive healthcare covered without copay. What part of that affects YOU? Shame on you for your gender treachery.
photo
FeralForever
I'm watching you...so play nice
06:45 PM on 08/04/2011
Fanned and faved, Lady1Genius! Treachery, indeed. I'd bet she has trouble walking from all the times she's shot herself in the foot.
01:19 AM on 08/05/2011
We are talking about private insurance policies. The insurance company writes a policy, the customers decide whether to buy it or not. So, let me understand: YOU get to say what the insurance policy says because You are Female and have Ovaries?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
squirrely girl
Assistant Professor ~ Developmental Psychology
06:08 PM on 08/04/2011
Taxpayers are ALREADY subsidizing folks' bedroom behaviors through treatment of STDs/STIs, treatments for erectile dysfunction, reproductive cancer screenings and treatments, and coverage of pregnancy and childbirth. What part of this equation do you really just not understand?!
03:50 PM on 08/04/2011
It never ceases to amaze me VIAGRA is covered yet the birth of an unwanted child to a poor mother is not covered once again the lag time on this is an embarresment .And for all of you who dont agree with birth control for anyone who so chooses DONT TAKE IT but stop trying to push your beliefs and ideas onto others .Mother of 2 girls in college not pregnant.
03:05 PM on 08/04/2011
For something as important as preventing pregnancy, $20 - $50 per month out of pocket is not a big burden for most married couples or for most working single people. People who can afford birth control aren't going to stop using it just because their insurance requires a modest co-pay. This regulation would make a practical difference only for the poor, the unemployed, etc.

What sense does it make for the Obama administration to give rich and middle-class women a break on their birth control costs? Why force everyone who buys medical insurance to pay more so that wealthy and middle class folks can get cheaper pills and thrills? If making birth control more accessible to the poor is so important, why not just give out government vouchers for "free" birth control pills to the needy? Hand them out with the food stamps. This would be expensive, but in the long run it would far less burden on society than forcing everybody's health insurance costs up to shower entitlements on people who don't need them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
coolmaiden
I fight right-wing bullies
04:03 PM on 08/04/2011
Did you read this at all? It's so people don't have to choose between necessities. Not everyone gets to keep their job forever or has a good insurance plan to help defray the cost.
Making birth control accessible is important to EVERYONE. It benefits society as a whole. Less prenatal and labor and delivery care for the insured as well as the uninsured. And perhaps, less ovarian and uterine cancer.
I seriously doubt this will make your premiums rise more than the ballooning weight of the average American overeater.
11:35 PM on 08/04/2011
This comment ignores the point of my post. Obviously, not all women need financial help to buy birth control
01:30 PM on 08/09/2011
Birth control is a "necessity" now? What a slap in the face to the millions of kids in Africa with no access to clean water or adequate meals. The billions spent by relatively affluent Westerners on modfiying the natural process of procreation could be spent providing for the actual necessities of underpriveleged kids in third world countries. Carnal indulgence for the rich or life-saving nutrition for the poor..which is a better use of charity?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
04:11 PM on 08/04/2011
The evidence shows that this is a revenue neutral move, that everyone who buys medical insurance will not pay more, but instead will pay just the same amount. Since those rich and middle-class women PAY for that health insurance, it doesn't seem out of line to me for the government to insist that the insurance companies actually include the services those women use, especially when it isn't going to raise premiums or cut into insurance company profits.

If what you're worried about women being "thrilled", rest assured that after a couple of years of marriage for most women the thrill is gone.
06:44 PM on 08/04/2011
1. You cite no data or "evidence," your claim is contrary to common sense, and politician's cost projections are almost always wrong, if not mendacious. Your assertion carries no weight.
2. We are talking about insurance co-pays. Virtually all health plans for all medical and dental goods and services require some co-pay or deductible to be paid by the patient. You have utterly failed to explain why contraceptives (or other women's health concerns for that matter) should be treated differently, or why affluent people deserve to have other people pay for their routine, elective use of birth control.
3. I'm not worried at all about women getting thrills. Moaning turns me on. (I generally think that people should pay for their own moans, though.)
02:10 PM on 08/04/2011
I honestly think this is political theater for obama to get his base out to vote in 2012 and it will never actually gointo effect as the insurance companies will fight it. It's also a way to distract the base from bigger issues like the wars and gitmo. I mean, it makes no sense to eliminate copays just for BC and not all the other important drugs that prevent costlier coditions. Pretty much everyone who wants BC is getting it uunless they're very poor AND in a state that defunded. Ifhe really wanted to ensure access to BChe would make,it OTC like in mexico so anybody could just buy it like any other item.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
10:38 PM on 08/04/2011
I wouldn't be too sure. You are aware that the insurance industry had tremendous input on the Affordable Care Act, right? It isn't just birth control that will be covered, there is a wide range of preventive services for all human beings under the new law. Since the insurance companies cannot treat being female as a pre-existing condition anymore, it would be cheaper to cover birth control than that complicated pregnancy and/or micro-premie care which can easily run into a million dollars.
01:48 PM on 08/07/2011
Why would insurance companies fight it? They are all about their bottom lines. Covering the cost of birth control is going to be far, far cheaper over time than covering a pregnancy and the future costs of medical care for the baby.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jmm561
02:09 PM on 08/04/2011
Now all they have to do is USE IT.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
catmagnet
Independent thinker
12:51 PM on 08/04/2011
Number 9 is INCORRECT. BC does NOT prevent endometriosis, but it does treat the symptoms to some extent by allowing women to suppress their periods, typically through continuous oral contraceptives (that means no 7 days off to have your period every month) or through Depo Provera injections. All I can say is that Depo has been a GODSEND and has allowed me to get through life without the monthly visit to the ER for a morphine drip due to the horrible pain I'd experience...and to now be able to get it without a copay? Music to my ears....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
12:40 AM on 08/05/2011
I was prescribed the birth control pill to treat the symptoms of endometriosis in 1967. It got the problem under good enough control that I was able to become pregnant in 1970. A lot of people commenting on here seem to be totally ignorant about what women's health problems really are and how they're treated. Instead they're just all freaked out because women might have sex without being 'punished' for it with a pregnancy. Whenever I start thinking sexism has vanished, the misogynist commenters on Huffington Post remind me they're out there, shaming and blaming the women for existing.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
coolmaiden
I fight right-wing bullies
09:08 AM on 08/05/2011
crowepps-
You have hit the nail on the head with each and every post I have seen here. You seem to be a very strong woman and I bet your child(ren) is/are very proud of you. I developed moderate adult-onset acne in my mid 20s and birth control has relieved a lot of the breaking out. I mentioned that earlier and was ridiculed because apparently I should just deal with the embarrassment and occasional pain?
These people are the same ones who blow smoke in the surgeon general's face and wave a fried chicken leg in front of the First Lady, yet when women say "I like sex and I don't want to get pregnant," and private insurance will help, they freak out. Thanks for your wisdom and honesty.
-CM
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NorthernNJ
Don't assume I share your prejudices
12:17 PM on 08/04/2011
I read through a few pages of the posts on here and it seems that all the negative comments refer to "controling your urges", abstinence and "just say no". What about the millions of MARRIED women who use birth control to space their children, so that each child gets the attention they deserve; limit their family to a size they can afford and avoid pregnancy because their paycheck is needed. I used Planned Parenthood while my husband was finishing up an advanced degree and I was working full-time (no health benefits) so that we could plan our future. Oh I see.....married people should "just say no" to each other. Oh yeah, and that "Fertility Awareness" thing.......I know of two couples who had surprise babies that way.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
crowepps
03:34 PM on 08/04/2011
"Fertility Awareness" used to be called "Natural Family Planning" and before that it was "Basel Body Temperature" and before that is was "The Rhythm Method". All of which work great so long as the people involved are willing to do without sex two weeks or more out of the month. Which they usually aren't. Which is why although if used perfectly they are fine, in actual use FA/NPF has three unpleasant side effects: it makes men feel guilty for feeling the normal desire to have sex, it prevents women from having sex during the part of their cycle when biologically they are most eager to have sex, and it fails to prevent pregnancy 25% of the time.

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/preventingpregnancy/fertilityawarenessNFP.html

Personally, it makes me pretty suspicious of the value of an idea when those promoting it have to keep changing the name so as to prevent people from using Google to figure out it doesn't work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
06:07 PM on 08/04/2011
LOL!
photo
goatini
We are two-legged wombs, that’s all
09:20 PM on 08/04/2011
... and before that, it was called "Vatican Roulette".

Hi Crow!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:28 PM on 08/04/2011
Good points.

I notice that the "controlling your urges" admonition, BTW, comes mostly (although not exclusively) from the right-wing males who apparently have a lot of practice in that particular method, having no other options available to them. ;) Of course given an opportunity, they forget to control their own urges all too easily, but still like to pontificate to others.
photo
jf12
When I saw her I marveled greatly.
05:48 PM on 08/04/2011
If more use of hormonal birth control actually led to more and better married sex, right wing males would be more in favor. Obviously.

You had asked what I meant about knowing I should be bad. I hate the complete irrationality of it, but I have decided to go with it partway, excusing via the ends justifying the meanness. For my wife I have decided to be bad by "making her want to" by simple manipulation, as well as direct coercion, since calm logic and assuaging niceties never did work. I also resolved to be bad to other women, precisely and merely by responding meanly to their unwarranted negative comments and complaints, especially their inevitable critiques of my appearance.

Narrative begins. I wanted to get my wife off away for almost a week, especially away from her fretting over her mother and sisters. I still hadn't told her we were going to the Ozarks, at first so it would be a surprise, but also so she wouldn't micromanage. She was on her usual negative kick, not wanting to go, and not wanting to stay "I hate this house", but I had prepaid nonrefundable four nights in a cabin on a lake. I was already packed the night before, but she took six hours getting ready, so we stopped overnight. She hated the motel, the restaurant, the me. The next morning she whined and delayed and complained the whole way, but we finally made it a day late.

contd
photo
jf12
When I saw her I marveled greatly.
05:53 PM on 08/04/2011
I explored walking very early without her, and then she wouldn't eat the breakfast I made. She determined to sulk in bed with HGTV and some Food and fashion channels. I promised to go with her to town that afternoon, but I didn't want to stay with her to look at houses I would never live in, recipes she would never cook for me, women I would never touch, so I went out on our pier. Immediately I began helping a tubby 11 year old boy play with a cold lake on a hot morning. Although my own current verion of cannonball and can opener are fairly similar, he took my corrections of his diving form sincerely, with aplomb.

His mother had earlier hollered something unintelligible harshly. She eventually wandered over in a large flannel shirt. The boy and I ceased our cavorting at her approach. She sneered "Are we having fun yet?" "We WERE having fun", I teased. She instantly managed "You look too old to have fun" which was the expected goad. I gamely parried "You look like you haven't had any fun yourself since you were young", my first intentional mean. And it was true: she was clearly no fun, dumpy, old already in her late thirties, hard faced, potato-shaped body. I didn't know what to expect in reply - anger, sadness, laughter maybe if she was intelligent, unlikely as that ever is. Instead she sat down near me on the side of the pier.

contd
11:27 AM on 08/04/2011
Some people need to take a step back and realize how many people this will positively influence. On the small scale, this will save $4 per every unintended pregnancy. Unplanned pregnancies lead to millions of dollars that would otherwise be going to somebody's welfare check. This IS preventative in the sense that it will save taxpayers 18 years of support for a possibly unwanted child.
Unwanted children are more likely to be abused and end up in foster care. 90% of all people on death row were once in foster care. Providing bc would mean, this group of people would no longer exist because of preventative measures.
I am a single parent because the father walked away. You cannot assume that every male that partakes in the baby making process will stick around. Still I take no money from the government in any sort of welfare program and never have nor do I receive child support, which I am very proud of because I can provide for myself and my son. I took precautions then, and still ended up getting pregnant and alone, but I am footing the bill so nobody else has a right to complain.
Also, I do have a solid insurance plan and still have to pay $60 every 3 months for Depo and that's one of the cheaper options. Anybody who takes bc is proactive in preventing future unplanned pregnancies and are still getting bashed for it. Still, bc is not always affordable for every person.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lady1genius
No se puede tapar el sol con un dedo
01:26 PM on 08/04/2011
I wouldn't be proud of not recieving any child support. Your child is entitled to be supported by BOTH of his parents, even if that's the sum contribution of the "father" (and I use the term loosely) in your case. I've been in your shoes. Do your son a favor and pursue his sperm donor and make him pay support. If you don't "need" the money, put it into an interest-bearing account for his future.