posted on Oct, 31 2010 @ 09:19 AM
This is a firestorm waiting to happen. I can foresee scores of those on the far right screaming that this is not only a waste of "their" tax dollars
for immoral purposes. But I can also see those on the far left trying to use this as a means of trying to get even more coverage for controversial
issues.
My own opinion is that birth control is not a bad idea at all in terms of being included in any healthcare coverage. The costs of dealing with this
after the fact is by far and away higher than allowing people to prevent the situation in the first place.
This also would help deal with even more divisive and painful issues, such as abortion and might even lower the number of new mothers receiving
welfare and medicare benefits.
In my opinion this is an issue we should all think about and even contact our congressmen about, no matter what our views on the subject.
The article spoke about this possibly being a means for people to have access to more expensive forms of birth control. I would ask that anyone with
an interest in this educate themselves about these options and weigh out whether or not we, as a society, would find these options to be more
desirable or if the cost outweighs the potential benefits.
If it helps with a variety of social programs and leads to safer options for women, then maybe politics might be put aside for the greater good.
Then again, maybe I'm hoping for too much here...
~Heff
hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)