In all the discussions and articles about the issue of contraceptive availability and coverage, there are one or two things that are true, but that I haven't seen yet. Going to talk about them below the squiggle.
There have been many comments, here on DK included, that say things like these:
* "I don't have a problem with contraception, I just don't want to pay for it."
* "Having sex is elective. I shouldn't have to pay for elective stuff for other people."
Insurance covers penile prosthetic implants for impotent males and Viagra for those who have trouble getting an erection. And the list goes on. Why does insurance cover these things? Logically, because (1) the human reproductive system is part of the physical body, and as such, is covered as part of the body's basic insurance-covered healthcare, and (2) sex is accepted as a human need, or at least as a strong enough want to qualify for insurance-covered treatments.
If we apply this logically, we can only conclude that some people sincerely believe that the penis, gonads, and other male sexual organs are considered part of the "default" human body, and are therefore covered by insurance as a matter of course -- but that the uterus, ovaries, and other parts of the female reproductive system are not; and that men having sex is a legitimate physical function requiring support and insurance at all times in all situations, while women having sex is an illegitimate physical function. At all times, and in all situations. From the insurance perspective.
When it comes to reproductive organs and sex, certain men want to have it both ways: They want birth control to be out there and be used, but they want others to cover the cost. They want their own sexual needs and wants covered by insurance, but not the needs of women.
Birth control pills are daily. The amount of birth control you take, and the amount you pay for it, doesn't vary, regardless of your sex life. Every woman of childbearing age is encouraged by any ethical doctor to take care of business. Treating physical illnesses, meeting medical needs, and preventing pregnancy, are the adult, responsible things to do.
Around 30-40% of women taking BCP are taking it primarily or solely for non-pregnancy-related reasons.
Women do not need a moral defense for taking BCP. Period.
Women's insurance coverage for BCP should not be ideologically linked to or dependent on coverage for male fertility/erection treatments. Why not? Because we're human and these are our bodies. We can't, morally speaking, pick and choose which organs to cover based on individual, private moral convictions. Women need good health; BCP help provide that. End of story. When men need erections as badly as an ill woman needs to be treated for crippling endometriosis, well, we're still comparing apples to oranges here, which is the problem.
Men's physical bodies and women's physical bodies are both apples, or both oranges, from the healthcare perspective -- all reproductive organs need to be covered, regardless of gender.
Having said that, it's still true that many people do link women's and men's reproductive healthcare coverage in their minds. So then it's necessary to state up front that if men need sex (and therefore if Viagra is a medical necessity to be covered by insurance), it's hypocritical and inaccurate to say that women don't need sex, or to say that male sexual activity is a necessity but female sexual activity is "elective" (quoting here from a NYT article commenter). You can't do that. Sex is necessary and healthy for humans, or it's not. Trying to divvy sexual intercourse up by gender is straight-up bias.
Reproductive health isn't necessary for men but optional for women. Not from an insurance perspective and not from any perspective.
You don't want to pay for BCP? You don't want insurance to help people prevent pregnancy, to prevent and treat serious illness, to promote health? Then it would be fair for people to respond that they don't want to pay for your "elective" sex life, that male erection/fertility supports can no longer be covered, and that men have to pay child support for all the children they've helped create through the difficulty women have in accessing contraception. (Keep reading.)
I've read in several places the idea that refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception is not the same as withholding it. For many women, because of the cost, this is patently false. (See again: The cost of BCP is always the same no matter what your sex life is like.)
For those who haven't noticed the economy, it's terrible. This makes it even harder for even more women to access BCP. Not insuring birth control is not only prima facie unjust when we do cover male reproductive health needs without question; it's illogical (which costs more, a month's worth of pills or 18 years of child support and child-rearing costs?), and for many women, lack of insurance coverage for contraception is indeed the same as withholding it.
But that's not the bottom line. The bottom line is that these are human bodies, human reproductive organs, and that men's reproductive systems are not the default for insurance purposes. Women's reproductive needs, including contraception, are obvious and unassailable. The question is whether our society will acknowledge women's sexual/reproductive needs and rights on the same human basis as we acknowledge men's, and if so, whether we are willing to cover basic reproductive healthcare for women as completely as we now cover extra care for men.
I argue that we should not cut back coverage for men, but that we should bring women's coverage up to that same standard. Ideally, along with the change in coverage we would see a shift in perspective -- one that views women's uteruses, women's ovaries, women's bodies, as human bodies.