Subsidizing female contraceptives

You are a woman looking to acquire contraceptives. These are your options--most obviously, you can look into birth control pills, which run $160-$600 per year. If you want a more intimate experience, NuvaRings run from $160-$600 per year. If you’re tired of the mainstream, the Depo-Provera shot is available for $220-$460 per year, and IUDs (intrauterine devices) cost a stunning $500-$1000 though they last a number of years. None of these options even take into account the price for the doctor’s visits that many women need in order to get a prescription for these contraceptives.

You are a man looking to acquire a contraceptive. Condoms are available free of charge at Student Health or for a mere 45 cents in your nearest residential vending machine (or $35-$60 per year in the real world). It’s inevitable that women bear the brunt of the extraordinary costs of pregnancy. But in our society, we’ve ensured that they bear the brunt of the extraordinary costs of avoiding pregnancy as well.

For those who claim to promote women’s access to birth control methods, they do so without providing means for them to be afforded by the general population. Yes, women may have all the care they need, but sorry, they probably won’t be able to afford it. Welcome to healthcare in the United States of America.

Due to the high price of female contraception, many women are forced to opt out of these protection methods and rely on the male to protect them from sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies. In this era of advancement in gender equality, women are increasingly self-sufficient. However, how can we claim to encourage women to decide their own futures if we do not provide the means for them to do so?

But prohibitively expensive female contraceptives aren’t just incongruent with the philosophy of social progress. They’re also hugely impractical. Hindering access to birth control increases teenage pregnancies, abortions and, most of all, the number of people in this country on welfare—for if someone doesn’t want a child and can’t afford the costs of contraceptives, their reasons for not wanting this child are likely financial. If a woman chooses to raise the child by herself she has an increased chance of ending up on welfare--as our work system is not built to support working single mothers. This system of governmental assistance is controversial in itself because of the high cost of sustenance; with a new high of nearly $1 trillion dollars spent in 2011.

In addition, the government loses the woman’s potential productivity. Due to an unplanned pregnancy, a woman who may have gone on to college and changed the world has her forward trajectory interrupted at the peak of her productivity. Imagine the contribution that this woman could have made to society if she had more options.

Lastly, accessibility to contraceptives aids in ongoing controversies surrounding abortion. Whether you are for or against the issues, I think that we would all agree that fewer abortions as a whole would create a happier society. Nevertheless, the best way to avoid abortions is to provide means to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening through multiple forms of contraceptives. Why not provide accessible means for women to take charge of their bodies and their lives without having to rely on men, or be thrust into potentially dangerous situations?

Female contraception is more expensive for a reason—unlike condoms, female contraceptives can be costly to manufacture. But would it be asking too much for the government to subsidize the costs—to remove the decision between a 45 cent condom or a $500 IUD? Doesn’t the cost of female contraception pale in comparison to the tremendous financial burden of welfare, abortions and hindered female productivity? Subsidizing contraception is financially practical, and it is a necessary step on the road to gender equality. It just makes sense.