Not one day too soon, an Institute of Medicine panel has recommended the government finally require health insurers to cover birth control for women as preventive care. And to top the cake with icing, they recommended no co-payments should accompany the coverage offered.
The group also recommended diabetes testing during their first prenatal visit for pregnant women considered high risk. For others not high-risk, the test could be done between 24-28 weeks. Screening for viruses that cause cervical cancer and contraception were among eight services recognized as preventive care measures.
It has been nearly a half century since the first introduction of birth control. And for the last 30 years, not a lot has changed in methods or time measure enabling women the ability to control their bodies without having to remember to take a daily pill or have something temporarily implanted. Now medical experts believe allowing easier access could be the very beginning of a revolutionary wave of finding more reliable, longer-acting and even safer methods of birth control for women.
THE NAY SAYERS
Of the 16-person Institute of Medicine panel, only one person refused to support the panels recommendations.
Todays world of instant everything is still trying to sort out what is proper and what falls into the category of immoral. Unfortunately, many conservatives and a few religious zealots are leading the charge against the progress being made. Confusing social mores with health issues, Catholics and others who are fundamentally against birth control completely are standing firm that the government should not require insurance coverage for drugs or any other contraceptive method that will prevent pregnancy. Their argument is that being pregnant is a healthy condition therefore no one should find methods to prevent it from occurring.
The Family Research Council stated that the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) could eventually lead to federal mandates of abortion. Why do they say this? Because the IOM is also including emergency contraceptions such as Plan B and ella to be covered as any other contraception method. However, the womens health policy director of the Kaiser Family Foundation, Alina Salganicoff, said abortion drugs are not included in any of the recommendations. And the Federal Food and Drug Administration has classified both Plan B and ella as birth control, not abortion pills.
THE SIGNIFICANCE TO WOMEN
Even though birth control pills and other methods are widely known and commonly used within the United States, 40 years after the scientific discovery, nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned. Forgetting to take a daily pill is a major reason. Experts believe finding longer-acting birth control would go a long way in cutting down on unplanned pregnancies especially among teenage girls. For women who are in child bearing years, healthier pregnancies could be achieved by spacing births further apart. Researchers have linked closely-spaced births as higher risks for prematurity, low birth weight, autism and developmental problems.
The IOM panel recommended other preventive services as well. These would not only benefit women, but society as a whole. The recommendations for health services with no co-pay would include: having at least an annual well-woman preventive care visit; annual HIV counseling and screening for sexually active women; counseling about sexually transmitted infections and how to prevent spreading the infection; a support system for breast feeding mothers that would include the cost of breast pumps.
Although not every nuance and yes, but has been answered yet, at least the first substantial move in over 40 years has been made in addressing a major health issue for women to the same level as men.
JUST TO CLAIRIFY
In my article last week which took the Moorhead City Council to task regarding their proposed ordinance about smoke shops, I lumped First Ward Councilman Luther Stueland and Diane Wray Williams in with those who voted in favor of the ordinance. That is wrong. Mr. Stueland sent me an email reminding me he did not vote in favor of the ordinance. So, I would like to apologize to Councilman Stueland for unintentionally lumping him in with those who have questionable judgment on this issue. And Diane Wray Williams was not in attendance at this meeting. However, I for one would like to know how she would have voted. As for others who went along to get along and voted in favor when they are indeed not really in favor, if you cannot stand behind a vote you make, why make it? Who are you really serving by doing that?
For questions or comments, email for Soo Asheim is: asheimrote@aol.com