Contraceptives proposal ignites student debate

Sparking debate among student groups, a recent federal proposal suggests requiring insurers to provide free contraceptives in a move that could impact Student Health Services’ operations, according to Women’s Health Administrative Chief Deborah Mathis.

Last week, officials in President Barack Obama’s administration sought to group the provision of free contraceptives into preventative health services for which, by law, insurers cannot charge.

Currently, SHS sells oral contraceptives, both brand and generic, for $15. Products are bought directly from pharmaceutical companies or wholesalers in large quantities and at a discount, which allows SHS to pass lower prices to students.

Mathis explained that there would be many challenges if this policy were implemented, and it is not clear what impact the measure would have on the cost of the student insurance plan or what other benefits might be affected.

“However, it certainly has potential to increase accessibility and affordability of contraceptives for many women,” Mathis wrote in an e-mail.

College sophomore and Penn Democrats President Isabel Friedman agreed. “This issue is particularly important to women at Penn because it would mean the difference between having access to all contraceptive practices available to you or not,” Friedman said.

However, others took issue with the proposed policy.

“Although I don’t think I speak for every pro-life person, I think Obama’s push to require insurers to provide free contraceptives to all not only oversteps the bounds of government but mistakenly implies that birth control is preventative care and pregnancy is a disease,” College junior and Penn for Life Co-President Teresa Hamill said.

Hamill explained that if the proposed policy were enacted, it would violate the “conscience rights of medical professionals.”

“As a Catholic, I believe that contraceptives should not be used, and I would not want to force any one else with the same belief to provide them,” Hamill added.

Anticipating opposition from the Catholic Church, Friedman emphasized the importance of the separation of church and state and the need to protect women’s First Amendment rights.

If the healthcare law were to be extended, this may also have an impact on individual privacy.

Normally, when a pharmacy dispenses prescription drugs to a patient, a claim is submitted to the insurance carrier who may send an “explanation of benefits” to the policyholder, usually a student’s parent, detailing all medications paid for by the insurer.

Since SHS sells contraceptives directly to the student and does not submit charges to an insurance company, student privacy is protected, Mathis explained. Charges posted to the student’s bursar bill are noted only as “Student Health Assessment,” whether they are contraceptives or crutches.

However, if all women were to have access to free contraceptives, SHS would need to write prescriptions for those students who want to take advantage of “free” contraceptive products, Mathis said.

Students would then be subject to an Explanation of Benefits potentially being sent to parents, which “may be an issue for many students,“ she added.

Comments (4)

I'm not going to belabor the point, so here's what I don't understand.

*I don't understand what being pro-life has to do with your stance on birth control. Birth control, no matter when you believe life begins, does not abort anything. It only prevents insemination.

*Pregnancy is not a disease, but at the same time preventative care is not solely to prevent diseases. In this case preventative care allows a woman to choose when she will enter a stage of medical vulnerability. Thus helping to mitigate unnecessary health risks for her and the baby.

*In general, insurance companies aren't well known for using their conscience, so I'm not sure why they should be allowed to exercise their "conscience rights" when left to themselves they so frequently screw people out of much needed benefits and care.

*As a Catholic, you don't want your money to in part finance contraceptives. As a Quaker, I don't want my money to in part finance warfare. Despite the much loved theoretical stance that the government should not do anything to transgress our religious beliefs, the practical situation is that it is impossible to follow all religious beliefs. Although your personal beliefs determine whom you vote for and hopefully by extension what laws get passed, the government isn't really under any obligation to operate in accordance with your religious beliefs. It is merely under the obligation not to interfere with your practice of your religion and to not favor one religion over another in its actions.

...so I won't try to. I just wanted to lend my support. I don't deny that this policy stands in contrast to Ms. Hamill's beliefs, but that doesn't make it a bad policy. Well said, 'confused'.

I'm only commenting because I've encountered a lot of people don't seem to understand the connection between opposing contraception and being pro-life, and while I suppose I can't speak for everyone, here's my way of understanding it (and I'll try not to be too lecturey). First, pro-life means more than anti-abortion; it means defending life at all stages and opposing a culture that devalues life. Sex comes with different components, and it's impossible to ignore the fact that one of these components is procreation; the very existence of birth control acknowledges while simultaneously trying to deny it. By preventing conception, birth control perpetuates the notion that one can have sex without having to accept this childbearing component. This mindset is the same that leads to abortions, therefore this is definitely a pro-life issue, and in no way is Ms. Hamill contradicting herself.

Again, Ms. Hamill's beliefs are her beliefs, and she is as welcome to have them as I am to have my own. I do not consider myself pro-life, but I completely respect a person (like Ms. Hamill) who is and who chooses to forgo abortion as an option and avoid birth control pills and other contraceptives. What I cannot agree with is the notion that such believers should be able to enforce their beliefs upon others. It is no more a pro-lifer's right to deny someone access to birth control than it is my right to require someone to use contraceptives. It is a pro-life person's right to be against birth control. It is my right to want to buy a condom.

Don't get me wrong-- I see where Ms. Hamill is coming from. She feels that it is wrong to force medical professionals who happen to be pro-life to give out contraceptives. That's a fair argument. However, there is no force whatsoever. I think it should be an assumption for one going into the medical field that requests for contraceptives will be commonplace. If that's not something you're comfortable with, you can choose not to sign up for this job. Like it or not, medicine is a service industry. It's not about your values; it's about the patient's values. So, by all means, stick to your values. No one is forcing you to take on this job.

Comments are closed for this item.