There's A New Fight About Birth Control (& It's Not About Banning It)

Photo: Tom Williams/AP Images.
Politicians are battling over birth control — again — but the argument looks different this time. Two female U.S. senators have introduced bills related to over-the-counter contraceptives, and both women take for granted that birth control should be available without a prescription. At a time when state legislatures are passing restrictions on abortion and slashing support for poor families, this is an improvement over past legislative debates over women’s health.

Last month, Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire introduced a bill with fellow GOP Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado that would make it easier for drug companies to get birth-control pills approved for over-the-counter sale by the FDA. In an op-ed for the New Hampshire Union Leader, Ayotte wrote, “I share the goal of increasing women’s access to safe and effective contraceptives.”

It's common sense, but it’s also not something you’d necessarily expect to hear from a member of the same party as Todd “legitimate rape” Akin. That Ayotte and Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina are both talking about contraception as an essential component of women’s success appears, on the surface, to be a step forward.

But, as reproductive health advocates and medical groups have pointed out, there’s a catch to Ayotte’s bill. The measure would make it possible for women to buy birth control over the counter, but it wouldn’t require insurance companies to offer it without a prescription, which could cost American women hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Ayotte has cited statistics from the American Conference of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to support her bill, but ACOG president Mark S. DeFrancesco, M.D., has spoken out against her proposal. "By making contraceptives available to women without a co-pay, it has truly increased access to contraception, thereby decreasing unintended pregnancies, and allowing women to better plan their futures,” he said in a statement. “Unfortunately, instead of improving access, this bill would actually make more women have to pay for their birth control, and for some women, the cost would be prohibitive."

Right now, health insurance is legally required to cover birth-control prescriptions without a co-pay, thanks to the Affordable Care Act. Contraceptives bought over the counter wouldn’t be covered by that part of the ACA, which means they could get expensive fast. According to Planned Parenthood, birth-control pills can cost as much as $600 a year, which could put it out of reach for many low-income women. Washington Sen. Patty Murray’s bill would make FDA-approved birth control available without a prescription, and it would require your insurance to cover it.

In an op-ed she wrote last week for Refinery29, Murray said, "Access and affordability go hand-in-hand. You can’t have one without the other."

According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, more than 60% of young Republicans agree with Murray, a Democrat. Of young Republicans who use birth control, 65% think insurance companies should have to cover it. That’s not a small group of people — 99% of all women between the ages of 15 and 44 have used contraception at some point in their lives. The prognosis for both bills is still uncertain, but leaders would be smart to listen to opinions from these constituencies as they put together future policies.

As members of the Senate debate what a future with over-the-counter birth control might look like, some of their colleagues are sticking to the older, more puritanical fights over reproductive rights. On Tuesday, House Republicans issued a proposal that would eliminate all Title X funding, which offers grants for groups to provide contraceptive and preventative health care to low-income women. The end of Title X could leave 4.6 million people without access to healthcare services, including affordable birth control.

Women’s health care — and easy access to it for all women, rich or poor, urban or rural — is going to be an unavoidable topic for anyone running for office in 2016. The fact that we’re talking about more than just whether to cut off access to it is a welcome change.

More from Politics

Monday night was the personification of media bias and rigged politics
Election Day lasts just one day — a 24-hour culmination of the seemingly never-ending campaign season. But we’ll spend the next two, four, six years ...
If you had to describe the current political climate in America, what word would you choose: volatile, toxic, or divisive? Perhaps all of the above. ...
If the chaotic party politics of the 2016 election have left you feeling completely birdbrained, this video is for you. The Founding Fathers (presented ...
Hillary Clinton has been a role model for our generation for years, and now she’s laying out a master class in taking on workplace sexism
1. Major News: A bill to prevent the government from shutting down and to fund the fight against Zika was stalled in the Senate. With a 45-55 vote, the...
We're clearly entering a golden age of socially conscious athletes. As the United States undergoes one of its most important eras of social upheaval since ...
Next week, a bill that bars Louisiana strip clubs from hiring dancers under the age of 21 goes into effect, and while it's been in discussion for some ...
But take heart. There won’t be a President Trump. Not if I and millions of other women in this country have anything to say about it
A young girl delivered a powerful message of peace speaking at the first Charlotte City Council meeting since violence threatened to rip the city apart ...
Hillary Clinton long ago learned to let the insults roll off her back. And in doing so, she’s uncovered Trump's Achilles' heel
Donald Trump believes that climate change is a hoax. Sorry, Donald Trump does not believe that climate change is a hoax. Are you confused yet? I don't ...
Less than 12 hours after being criticized for calling out a former Miss Universe about her weight, Donald Trump is doubling down on his body-shaming ...
Watching the first presidential debate, I felt three things: terror, inspiration, and skepticism