Do Women Really Want To Be Paid In Birth Control Pills?

Well, well. The Rush Limbaugh took the bait and got himself in trouble for calling a rather silly woman a nasty name. Sandra Fluke testifies that the Georgetown University Law School health plan should cover her birth control costs, which she absurdly prices at $3,000 for three years' worth. Instead of just pointing out the mathematics of this, and how truly silly this person, and the whole argument is, or better yet, just letting her put her testimony into the congressional record and letting it go, Mr. Limbaugh elevated her to status of a cause celeb, which is exactly what she wanted.

Now, the woman was clearly exaggerating the cost of birth control in order to draw attention to herself, but let's use her numbers as an example. Here's the math. If a health plan is to provide $1,000 per year in birth control pills for every woman, that would mean an increment to the health bill of 1,000 per year. One might argue that the cost could be spread over men as well as women, which would mean that each person's premium would go up by $500, for which the men wouldn't get anything, except perhaps, a vasectomy, if he so elected.. If you are lucky, your employer might pay half of this, so everyone would pay an additional $250 for insurance, and the employer would pay an additional $250, which the employer could otherwise add into the person's check.

So, the real question is, would most women rather be paid an extra $500 per year in cash to spend on whatever they want, or would they like to be forced to pay $250 more in insurance premiums so they can get $1000 worth of birth control pills? Yes, in this scenario, women have succeeded in wrangling an extra net of $250 worth of birth control pills from their male co-workers, but really, do women really want to be paid in birth control pills? And, if we offered most women $500 more in their pay, would they find a more efficient way to avoid pregnancy on their own, and be able to spend the difference on something else?

I know the administration would argue that by avoiding pregnancy and its attendant costs, the overall health care costs would actually decline. But, by their own reckoning, 99% of women are already using birth control. So, will there really be fewer pregnancies if only we paid women in birth control pills?