Legislating the Uterus

[Atlas]

well i want over to jezebel to get some facts since while the majority is batshit crazy they do have some smart women. unfortunately those no links to back it up but flareblitz posted a similar link so im sure anyone could do some digging to get the facts they need to prove/disprove it.

His taxes aren't going to birth control.

Insurance companies will be required to pay for BC as part of their plans. The insured pays for the insurance plan, or they pay for a portion of the plan and their employer pays for a portion of the plan as a negotiated benefit of their job.

In any case, here are some quick numbers on pregrency:

* For patients not covered by health insurance, the typical cost of a vaginal delivery without complications ranges from about $9,000 to $17,000 or more, depending on geographic location and whether there is a discount for uninsured patients.

* The typical cost for a C-section without complications or a vaginal delivery with complications ranges from about $14,000 to $25,000 or more.

* According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month, depending on health insurance coverage and type of pill. On an annual basis, that means the Pill costs between $160 to $600.

* Similarly, being too frugal by opting for a "free" but relatively ineffective method, such as fertility awareness or withdrawal, can easily lead to accidental pregnancy. A couple using no birth control has an 85 percent chance of becoming pregnant in one year.

So the insurance money should save thousands of dollars per year paying $600 for BC, vs. $9,000 to $25,000 per pregnancy! Especially with an 85% chance of pregnancy w/o BC - you aren't talking about just 1 kid in 20 years, you are talking about many kids!

Thanks, I've been wondering about these stats for a while! Mainly to back up a point in the BC mandate debate: It makes sense for insurance companies to pay for BC, because otherwise they have to pay for births, which are shit expensive. I thought it would be more ambiguous, we might have to take into account lifetime costs of unplanned pregnancies etc, but it seems pretty clear.

Putting 100 women on BC for a year: max $60,000
Cost of unplanned pregnancies in a year (with a typical failure rate of 8%): $72,000
Total: $132,000

Typical failure rate of condoms: 15%
Cost of 15 pregnancies: $135,000

Not a huge difference, but this is a worst case scenario - minimum cost of birth, maximum cost of BC, worst case ratio of failure rates.

Hell, insurance companies should be paying US to use BC (and lower failure rate BC like the IUD).

 

[DM]

@DM and anyone else inclined to comment:

I don't see why Roe V Wade (nor any of the Supreme Court's decisions since then) should prohibit any of these laws (that either limit abortions or make them more difficult to obtain) from being introduced.
<snip lots about SCOTUS>

I understand what you're saying, but it isn't the Supreme Court's job to overturn prior cases unless they're BLATANTLY wrong. Dred v. Scott was blatantly wrong. To do that would amount to judicial activism, the bane of law scholars everywhere. These new proposed laws fall squarely within cases that have already been decided, and to go against those prior decisions flies directly in the face of stare decisis and is intolerable to American jurisprudence.

Like I said, I never would hazard a guess as to how the current Supreme Court may rule on these laws. But just because they have the ability to overturn a case doesn't meant they should without a DAMN good reason.