Being A Pill

May 9, 1960: The Food and Drug Administration approves the sale of oral contraceptives, and on June 23, 1960 Searle received permission from the FDA to market Enovid, the first oral contraceptive prescription drug. [AWH] Within the next five years 25% of the women in the United States of America had used “The Pill.”  This shouldn’t have surprised anyone.  As of 2011 the CDC would report that  “In the United States, most women of reproductive age use birth control. Between 2006–2008, 99% of women who had ever had sexual intercourse had used at least one method of birth control.”  And, herein lies an interesting question.

Of all the contraceptive methods available why is The Pill the one attracting attention? Why is The Pill argued to be a form of murder in the womb? But, barrier methods, transcervical sterilization,  tubal ligation, and male vasectomies are not commonly included in the list of evils?

Racial Overtones?  Consider the following graph from the Centers For Disease Control’s 2010 study (pdf) on the use of contraception in the United States.

While The Pill is popular with all sexually experienced women during their reproductive years, it is the most popular among white women.  The disparity between racial groups may have something to do with the expenses involved if we assume that most women are spending about $240 per year or more for oral contraceptives. [DailyFinance] It is difficult to look at this graph and not see that some ultra-conservatives may perceive The Pill as an obstacle to increasing the percentage of the white population in the country. This is an interesting point to ponder because there were initial fears in the African American community centered on whites using the pill to reduce their percentage of the population back in the 1960s.  [AmEx PBS]  The fact that 78% of African American women in their child bearing years are now using oral contraceptives indicates most of  these fears have been placated.

Age Related?  The CDC study also indicated definite differences in contraceptive decisions by age.

The Pill is associated most strongly with young (15-24 yr) women.  The rationale is probably obvious.  Younger women are attempting to avoid unintended pregnancies, and not considering any permanent procedures which will affect their ability to become pregnant later on, especially after college or initial business experience.  This conclusion isn’t too hard to reach with the graph showing a drop from 48% to 35% at age 25.  The point is driven home in the next graph:

It’s possible to write a full paragraph about the contents of the chart shown above, but perhaps it would be more economical to write that by age 35 most women who select sterilization as their contraceptive of choice have simply said, “Enough.”

So, when we hear presidential candidate Santorum refer to contraception by saying, “It’s not okay, because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be,” Santorum said. “They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal… but also procreative,” [TDB] the statistical context is that young white women are “doing things” that aren’t, “conjugal.”   Memo to former Senator Santorum: Since the dawn of time young people have been doing things that aren’t “conjugal.” The use of the term “license” is also provocative.

We really don’t wish to be a licentious nation.  However, neither are we a naïve one, but given the statistical context in which his statement was made it’s hard not to come to the conclusion that his concern centers on what young white women might be doing — and not on what young white men might be seeking.  Does Senator Santorum believe that it is the female who is “licentious” while the male is excused because “boys will be boys?”  Or, it is the female who is allowing the males to be “licentious?”   Is Santorum’s contention founded on the medieval perception of Eve as the Evil Temptress — conveniently forgetting that the original sin was eating from the tree of knowledge (separating ourselves from Creation by assuming judgmental authority) and not that homo sapiens suddenly discovered our sexuality?

A secondary question should be: To whom does Santorum’s message appeal? The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released its February 22, 2012 results saying,  “Sen. Rick Santorum’s lead among Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents is built on the votes of Republican men, Tea Party supporters and white evangelical Christians,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.”  These might be the same individuals who are more likely to espouse culturally defined interpretations of Biblical sin, and perhaps be equally likely to worry about the decline of the white population as a percentage of the total U.S. population?

As sincere as Senator Santorum’s beliefs may be, they are far from the mainstream of American thinking.  It’s hard not to agree with the Democratic pollster who opined: “I don’t know where the they think the electoral advantage is on this. These are things that have been decided a long time ago.” [TPM] And, thus we have the spectacle in which yet another Republican debate audience added “contraception” to the list of things to be booed, joining uninsured people in ill health, gay members of the Armed Forces, while cheering for the death penalty. [C&L]

I have to agree with the pollster, I simply do not understand “where they think the electoral advantage is on this.”  Any of this.

Head’s Up: Recommended Reading

The Sales Tax Deduction is popular in Nevada, and Rep. Shelley Berkley intends to introduce legislation in Congress to put it back in the tax code. [LVSun]

It’s a popular credit in Nevada, which has the nation’s 13th-highest average sales tax rate. In an average year, an average Nevada family saves about $1,443 on their taxes, by Berkley’s estimate, through the credit — and over 316,000 Nevadans availed themselves of the credit in 2009. [LVSun]

There’s a thought provoking piece on ten statements from the Catholic Church (hint: one calls for raising the minimum wage) that ‘theologically pure’ conservatives seem to be ignoring.

The Department of Commerce launched a new website for businesses seeking information about financing, entrepreneurship, and exporting.  The site combines several previously established information sources in one much more easily accessed location.

The Department of the Treasury has information from its Treasury Notes site on both financial and budget issues.  The most recent post argues that it may not be about how much reduction in the budget deficit as the issues may revolve around who pays for the reduction.

Santorum strikes again.  “Pre-natal testing encourages abortion.”  Amninocentesis does indicate Down Syndrome, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, and hemophilia.  [C&L]  The question becomes, what is Santorum’s alternative for lower or middle income American families who may not have the financial resources to care for a child born with cyctic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, or hemophilia?  Unfortunately, what we may have here is yet another example of the ultra-conservative pro-life view that life begins at conception and ends at birth. When asked about his “phony theology” comments, Santorum tried to make it sound as though he meant “radical environmentalists.” [TPM] Nice try.

Recommended: Watergate Summer’s Why Women Matter.

In case you missed it:  NO, federal regulations are NOT make college educations more expensive.  [Washington Monthly]  And, Conservatives seem to be going both ways on health care costs. [Perrspectives]

The Blunt Amendment: Be careful what you wish for, with charts

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) says there will be a vote on Senator Roy Blunt’s (R-MO) anti-contraception amendment — to, of all things, the transportation bill. [LVSun]  The vaguely worded amendment isn’t a good idea, but that won’t stop Senate Republicans from trying to get Senate Democrats on record in favor of The Pill.  Oh, Please, with a nod to the otherwise unknown American Breed:  “Bend me, shape me, any way you want to, as long as you love me it’s all right.”

The trick to these ceremonial votes, of course, is that BOTH sides go on record, and from a Democratic perspective what’s not to love about having the Republican Party on the roll call record against requiring the coverage of contraceptive prescriptions as a part of basic health insurance plans?  Especially when 66% of Americans believe that private health insurance plans should provide full coverage for birth control.  And to Question 75 (And what about for religiously affiliated employers, such as a hospital or university – do you support or oppose a recent federal requirement that their health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control for their female employees?) 61% responded in the affirmative. [NYT CBS pdf]

In addition to being off target in terms of popular opinion in the U.S., the GOP is also opening itself up to the charge that the current flap over contraception is a way to further the interests of the health insurance corporations who would very much like to put severe limits on what can be called “basic coverage.”  Every premium dollar these corporations expend on actual health care is one less buck for their bottom line. Hence, if employers can opt out of contraceptives, vaccines for children, transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, psychiatric care for Scientologists, or all chemical based treatments for Christian Scientists… (we get the picture, and so did Jon Stewart in his “Vagina Ideologues” moment.) Mother Jones puts it this way:

“If Republican leaders get their way and Blunt’s bill becomes law, a boss who regarded overweight people and smokers with moral disgust could exclude coverage of obesity and tobacco screening from his employees’ health plans. A Scientologist employer could deny its employees depression screening because Scientologists believe psychiatry is morally objectionable. A management team that thought HIV victims brought the disease upon themselves could excise HIV screening from its employees’ insurance coverage. Your boss’ personal prejudices, not science or medical expertise, would determine which procedures your insurance would cover for you and your kids.” [Mother Jones]

The Tea Party attachment to the interests of the health insurance corporations may be a tenuous hand hold, the NYT/CBS polling shows one trend not all that conducive to election success. The YES responses to the following question:

There’s another home made chart to which the members of the Congress probably ought to be paying more attention:

Ouch.

The “lack of approval rating” may be a function of Congress’s inclination to pander to right wing activists while NOT engaging in serious efforts to address issues of far greater importance to the American public.  There’s a homemade chart for that too:

Meanwhile back in the U.S. Senate, Senator Blunt’s tip of the hat to the insurance corporations and the radical right will get an “upper’down” vote, and the objections to it from the National Women’s Law Center will remain unaddressed.  Nor will the radical right necessarily respond to the question in regard to why allowing an employer to determine the coverage included in an employee’s health care plan protects anyone? [Mother Jones]

And, just a reminder — the religious organizations in their capacity as employers are NOT required to include contraception services in their plans, but if they don’t then THE INSURANCE CORPORATIONS would have to offer individual employees contraception prescription coverage. So, NO, this isn’t “just like making a Muslim or Jew eat pork.”  A more apt analogy would be to say that if an institution doesn’t approve of pork or beef consumption, then the employees are perfectly free to go the supermarket and get their own.

Life will go on in the U.S. Senate today, but Senator Reid’s comment on Senatorial matters may have some traction with a populace already disposed to complain about government and the politicians who run it:

“We have wasted weeks in this Congress, months in this Congress on dilatory tactics,” said Reid. “[W]e have wasted valuable time sitting around doing nothing … it’s really unfortunate.”  [The Hill]  Indeed, the Blunt Amendment is a waste of time and effort when there are far more important topics to be debated — like JOBS.

A Lesson From Catholic Bishops: How Not To Handle A Controversy

The President compromised on the DHHS regulations and now the Bishops are pushing back with this comment:

“In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters,” the bishops said in a lengthy statement. “The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS [the Health and Human Services Department] to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.” [The Hill]

How else to translate this other than: In a nation dedicated to religious liberty …unless we get our very own way we will not be satisfied, and WE will dictate what WE want rescinded to the government of the people of the United States?

This would be the same group of Bishops who once said:

“Stressing that it is vital to ensure that health care is offered in ways that recognize and protect human dignity, the Cardinal declared that the Medicare program has done this. In order to continue to fulfill this mission, the nation must commit sufficient resources to ensuring its financial solvency as well as reflecting the advances in medical care. In this time of projected budget surpluses, he urged Congress to dedicate a portion of projected surpluses to strengthening the financial stability of the Medicare program.”  [USCCB]

Not to put too fine a point to it, but what we have here is a conference of Bishops who want increased Medicare/Medicaid funds for their affiliated hospitals — money coming from all manner of faithful folks, like Jews, Methodists, Congregationalists, Jains, Muslims, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Quakers, and Unitarian Universalists — but they don’t want members of these groups “interfering” in their employee benefit policies.

Remember, what the President said was not that the Church had to hand out birth control pills, or even pay for the birth control pills, or even pay to provide insurance coverage for birth control pills — what President Obama said was that IF a private employer did not sanction birth control medication then the INSURANCE  corporations would provide the coverage.  This puts the decision of whether or not to use contraceptive prescription medication in the hands of the employees who, according to the Bishops, have the benefit of religious liberty.

There was, and maybe still is, a common complaint made that “Catholics want to hang their religion around other peoples’ necks.”  Sadly, the Conference of Bishops is lending this otherwise specious charge a truck load of credence.

Pill Low Fight: Administration Moves, Bishops Pawned – Updated

This should cover it:

“On a conference call with reporters Friday, a senior administration official announced that the White House will move the onus to provide women free contraceptive services to insurance companies if their religiously-affiliated employers object to providing insurance coverage that covers birth control.

“All women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services,” the official said. “The insurance company will be required to reach out directly and offer her contraceptive coverage free of charge,” if the employer objects to providing that coverage in its benefit package.”  [TPM]

When I stop to think about it, this should have been the directive in the first instance because the fight was never about whether an employer should provide contraception coverage, but whether or not an employee would have access to it.

The employer, in this case religious institutions, may not wish to promote birth control, but if the institution employes individuals who are not a member of that denomination then the acceptance of employment comes with an implied acceptance of the employer’s religious doctrine.  We’ve not been a nation that forces individuals to adopt other people’s religious views.

That question has been around for years.  James I of Great Britain addressed the general issue in his Basilikon Doron, taking a broad swipe at Puritans who believed they were entitled to lay down the law to others, while resenting any criticism of themselves. (See: Massie, “The Royal Stuarts,” Vintage Books, 2010)

“The first calumnie (most grieuous indeed) is grounded vpon the sharpe and bitter wordes, that therein are vsed in the description of the humors of Puritanes, and rash-headie Preachers, that thinke it their honour to contend with Kings, and perturbe whole kingdomes.” [Basilikon Doron]

Perhaps we can lay this wedge issue to rest before it further  “perturbes” the country?

Update:  White House Fact Sheet on Women’s Preventive Services.  Planned Parenthood approves accommodation. [TPM] Catholic Hospital Association, Catholics United approve plan. [Think Progress]