2008 Woodie Awards
UI must continue to provide birth control to students
Editorial
DI Editorial Board
Issue date: 11/14/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
Clearly, abstinence education would be an ineffective method of preventing the spread of STDs throughout the UI's "experienced" students. Discounted birth control, however, is foolproof (literally). The university provides a large amount of discounted birth control every academic year - a process that, until now, has lasted through both semesters. That the UI's supply of cheap birth control has run out nearly six months ahead of schedule is indicative of a major lapse in fiscal decision-making. This drastic cutback is a disservice not only to those unable to buy their own birth control but to the entire student body.
The problem is rooted in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which attempts to slow spending by hindering the growth of such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. One result of the legislation is that pharmaceutical companies are unable to provide discounted birth control to universities. Apparently, the act's creators were unaware of the costs society incurs in lieu of affordable birth control.
If nothing else, the absolute failure of abstinence-related programs is enough to attest to the necessity of birth control. It is now clear that, regardless of what information or contraception is available, students are going to have sex. To that end, if unprotected sex becomes more prevalent, society will inevitably face an increase in unwanted births and STDs - both coming at a high cost. Obviously, it is more cost efficient to provide $15 birth control than thousands of dollars in government aid for struggling mothers, but birth control's various future implications seem to have been disregarded. Thus, it appears this disservice is one born not of iniquity but of incompetence.
As much as faulty legislation is to blame for the problem's creation, the UI is to blame for its acquiescence. Certainly, there are times at which uncontrollable circumstances necessarily incur additional costs. The debate, then, comes down to whether or not the Deficit Reduction Act qualifies as one such circumstance. Upon further inspection, the likely monetary and social costs suggest that it is.
The problem is rooted in the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, which attempts to slow spending by hindering the growth of such programs as Medicare and Medicaid. One result of the legislation is that pharmaceutical companies are unable to provide discounted birth control to universities. Apparently, the act's creators were unaware of the costs society incurs in lieu of affordable birth control.
If nothing else, the absolute failure of abstinence-related programs is enough to attest to the necessity of birth control. It is now clear that, regardless of what information or contraception is available, students are going to have sex. To that end, if unprotected sex becomes more prevalent, society will inevitably face an increase in unwanted births and STDs - both coming at a high cost. Obviously, it is more cost efficient to provide $15 birth control than thousands of dollars in government aid for struggling mothers, but birth control's various future implications seem to have been disregarded. Thus, it appears this disservice is one born not of iniquity but of incompetence.
As much as faulty legislation is to blame for the problem's creation, the UI is to blame for its acquiescence. Certainly, there are times at which uncontrollable circumstances necessarily incur additional costs. The debate, then, comes down to whether or not the Deficit Reduction Act qualifies as one such circumstance. Upon further inspection, the likely monetary and social costs suggest that it is.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 12
wes
posted 11/14/07 @ 8:40 AM CST
"Clearly, abstinence education would be an ineffective method of preventing the spread of STDs throughout the UI's "experienced" students. Discounted birth control, however, is foolproof (literally). (Continued…)
Brian '99
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:03 AM CST
What? The University offered cheap condoms while I was there? Who knew and didn't tell me? Well, if I survived college buying my rubbers at the store, and managed to not knock anyone up, I think everyone else can as well. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:17 AM CST
"Unprotected sex will inevitably become more prevalent if fewer students are able to acquire the proper birth control. As a result, pregnancy rates will increase in proportion. (Continued…)
wes
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:27 AM CST
"Old enough to go to war for our country, old enough to buy your own damn birth control."
I agree with personal responsibility. I'd consider this more of an educational discount. (Continued…)
HD
posted 11/14/07 @ 11:16 AM CST
Do Kirkwood students get subsidized birth control? What about private liberal arts colleges. Do those students get cheap reproduction control?
Miketh
posted 11/14/07 @ 11:33 AM CST
Where do people invent these rights? Typical moronic crap. If you want something, just declare it your "right" and expect someone to give it to you. (Continued…)
cpd
posted 11/14/07 @ 12:41 PM CST
While, yes, individuals should exercise personal responsibility by consistently using condoms to prevent the spread of STD/STIs in addition to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies; however, we can't ignore the extreme cost difference between that of the the pill and that of over the counter methods. (Continued…)
brwilson81
concerned student
posted 11/14/07 @ 12:45 PM CST
The inconvenient truth is:
-if you get pregnant you can conveniently get an abortion
-if you get genital herpes, there is no convenient way out!
remember what we have learned at the UI with respect to the prestigious editors' assertions on STDs and birth-control: correlation implies causation! (see global warming)
and why are our liberal friends worried about accidental pregnancies?-- aren't we going to need more taxpayers to pay for Hillary's neosocialist programs (cradle to the grave entitlements)?
just a little food for thought. (Continued…)
Logan
posted 11/14/07 @ 3:36 PM CST
The birth control policy that the author is referring to is birth control pills which do not prevent against STD's. Maybe the author could be more clear on that pills do not provide any protection against STD, which hopefully the author understands. (Continued…)
Megan O
posted 11/14/07 @ 4:04 PM CST
If you're an adult on your parents insurance and "can't" tell them you want/need to get birth control, you have some growing up to do.
That being said, some students are uninsured, and $50 a pack for BC is pretty damn outrageous. (Continued…)
Post a Comment