Pain and Shame: What Real Life Looks Like in a Religiously-Affiliated Non-Profit Without the Birth Control Mandate

I'm not sure how it works right now, but 30+ years ago, when I went in for birthcontrol, I paid a fee for the physical and the diaghram. It seems to me that I paid about $25.00 in total and the diaghram was about $10.00. The fee was based on income. Now I had insurance at work, but back then, the insurance company wouldn't cover birthcontrol for single woman.....

My youngest sister went for a well-woman check up and birthcontrol about 2 years ago and paid a fee too, although I don't know how much it was, but she thought it was reasonable considering she has no insurance.

I went in a few years ago and was charged nothing. I was told that my payment should be anything that I could afford. Since I was in highschool and had no job, I wasn't able to leave them anything, but it left me with the idea that all PP's were run that way.

Planned Parenthood does not automatically provide free services. Check the information at these links:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090813133406AAfcXjO

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ppwny/about-our-fees-28549.htm

People who need hormone treatment for an ongoing disease dont always find the hormone balance they needed in pre dispensed medication...

In other words... the mix they require could not be among the choices for generic or cheap birth control and they have to look outside to the specialty brands to get the balance they need...

Birth control for birth control reasons doesnt require as fine of a point as taking hormone replacement for therapy reasons... you can blast hormones full tilt to prevent a pregnancy, but it may cause major problems for someone looking for therapy.

Make sense?

The last year PP released info on their handouts from the taxpayer in 2008 it was $349,600,000.

Since then they have built PP to over $1,000,000,000 in assets, yeah I'm thinking they could cover contraceptives on their own without all the drama, if not maybe they could cut some of the absurd salaries they are paying their management, it's like they think they are working on wall street or running a union.

Our nearest PP is over 200 miles away, considering the cost of gas, that's pretty expensive "low cost" contraceptives.

Yes and No.

Planned Parenthood currently recieves no federal funding, because monies are filtered through government on the state and local level. These monies are provided by the federal government.

Planned Parenthood does not supply birth control for free, unless the woman involved can show indigence, or extreme poverty.

Could you clarify that a little for me Chaos?

Planned Parenthood currently recieves no federal funding, because monies are filtered through government on the state and local level. These monies are provided by the federal government.

Maybe I'm just distracted right now but I'm not getting what you wrote.

The only reason I linked the 08 numbers is PP wasn't required (I'm going off fuzzy memory on this) to disclose their profits after that, I didn't see anything where they were no longer getting taxpayer money.

LOL

Sorry cannonballer, I wasn't clear in my post.

Technically, federal funds are passed to state governments, which in turn use them to fund Planned Parenthood. So, technically, the fed does not give monies directly to P.P., although the funds do get to it. Sometimes, for example with my own state of Indiana, the state government cuts off P.P. for religious reasons (abortion, in Indiana), but so far private donations have more than replaced the loss.

P.P. is a not-for-profit, so technically they make no profits.

Like I said, Yes, and No.

Gotcha, thanks.

doesn't Planned Parenthood dispense these contraceptives for free?

I wouldn't know. I live nowhere near a planned parenthood.

Whether or not PP dispense BC for free is not the issue. Are we going to rely on the American Cancer Society to provide chemo? American Diabetes Ass'n to provide dialysis? Or is the coverage what we pay insurance for? PP is there to fill in the gaps not to be the primary resource. I have taken the pill at various times in my life, for pregnancy prevention and now to control ovarian cysts (birth control is a side benefit, but ending the 24 days a month of bleeding and cramping is the main purpose.) I consider it as routine as my husband's blood pressure medicine and my daughter's thyroid medicine. And I want it covered, just the same. Just because men don't get pregnant is no reason for men to decide it shouldn't be covered.

Just because men don't get pregnant is no reason for men to decide it shouldn't be covered.

If they do decide that they don't want birth control covered by insurance, then they should abstain from having sex with women.

I truly wonder if we could get all women to band together and withhold sex until men get reasonable about women's rights. (Wasn't that done in ancient Greece at some point?) That's the thing these lecherous right wingers don't get: if they do away with BC and abortion, how are they going to continue to enjoy their affairs? I mean, not every man can convince a woman to just give blow jobs like Gingrich did to avoid "cheating" and pregnancy. The modern woman likes a little something in return! Even the monogamous ones would have to figure out how many children they're willing to risk.

Hell, yeah! I'm getting pretty ticked at some of the anti-women stuff going on out there, and I'm thinking it's time to restart the women's movement. We can't let them take what we fought so hard to get. I can't even believe we have to have this discussion, it is pretty sad.

and high-decibel theatrics about individual liberty, rights and responsibilities are all just hyperbolic strawmen at best,

So does that statement go for all rights and responsibilities or just the ones you prefer to champion.

Everything else you said can be boiled down to one word. Faith. Some believe in a higher power, others believe in what they can see. Neither one is wrong, but you do not see people waging war against anyone but the religious.

but you do not see people waging war against anyone but the religious.

Wrong. We see the religious waging war against women.

Wrong. We see the religious waging war against women.

And homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders; other religions.

Excuse me.

When one person denies another for religious reasons, then the rights of those being denied must take precedence. This must be, or else our nation becomes a Theocracy ruled by the religious, and not a free society.

Neither one is wrong, but you do not see people waging war against anyone but the religious.

Your kidding? Who're the ones raising hell about contraception?

So does that statement go for all rights and responsibilities or just the ones you prefer to champion.

All rights and responsibilities; there should be no "right" to deny your employees access to legal health care in the crackhead basis of some superstitious voodoo.

Everything else you said can be boiled down to one word. Faith. Some believe in a higher power, others believe in what they can see. Neither one is wrong, but you do not see people waging war against anyone but the religious.

That statement is a load of santorum.

It wasn't since 1968. The Church has always been against artificial birth control

He didn't come out against the pill intil 1968.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/health/a-brief-history-of-the-birth-control-pill/480/

Have you seen the list of side-effects from pregnancy?

A child?

*facepalm*

Of course. What was I thinking?

LMAO!

Sorry, couldn't help it.

Ummm DEATH!

Ummmm PROLAPSED UTERUS

Ummmm STERILITY

Ummmm INFECTION

Ummmm DANGEROUS HYPERTENSION (beyond the regular)

Ummmm DIABETES

Did I mention DEATH!!

Just some of the side effects of pregnancy.

When my wife was pregnant many years ago, I was terrified something could go wrong and I could lose my wife and/or child. Now that I'm and old man and my daughter is happily married, I live in terror of her getting pregnant someday, having problems and losing my daughter and/or her child. I guess I could never look at a pregnancy as a 'routine' pregnancy.

12lbc,

How terrifying. Let me let you in on something... no pregnancy is routine. Really they aren't. The war the body goes through during pregnancy is so not routine, but doctors are there to make us feel better and calm us down so they speak of routine.

If your daughter's situation is so bad, would she think of adoption or using a host mother? It will be much safer for all concerned. Most host mothers have been examined to have the best chance at a lower risk pregnancy.

Free

No access......total BS

from the site that you linked:

"The Idaho Family Planning Program receives federal money, appropriated by Congress since 1970 (called Title X) to confidentially provide uninsured or underinsured women and men, ages 10-55, with the education and contraceptives needed to plan their families and space their children as they choose...The cost of services vary depending on income and family size. No one is refused service because of inability to pay."

So your insinuation that they give contraceptives away for free to anyone is what is actually BS.

Of course you are wrong..but you knew that....no cigar...if cannot pay it is free. Period. No excuse for not going....NONE.

And in a very Red state....

Get over it.....the no access scare is exactly that...scare.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/heartland/payment-options-29854.htm

*The key to remember is that at Planned Parenthood, no patient is ever turned away for inability to pay. Call 1.877.811.7526 for more information.

You must meet certain qualifications to receive services for free at Planned Parenthood clinics. If a woman is working and has insurance, then she may not qualify for free services.

If she is working and has insurance..why would she need free services from Planned Parenthood?

Because not all insurance plans cover prevention.

If she is working and has insurance..why would she need free services from Planned Parenthood?

Her wages could be high enough so that she does not qualify for free services, but not enough so that she can easily pay for contraceptives if her insurance does not cover birth control.

The go to a States H & W site.....not turned away because of inability to pay...NONE..No excuse.

Or use birth control that does not require a prescription. I realize that the pill is used not just to prevent pregnancy.

Why do men get involved with things they know nothing about?

The go to a States H & W site.....not turned away because of inability to pay...NONE..No excuse.

How does the state determine that a person has an inability to pay?

While everyone is all on about insurance plans covering birth control, you are aware that most plans do not cover pregnancy, prenatal/post natal, delivery, etc.

From start to finish the average pregnancy costs $27,000. Now the average cost of a years worth of birth control is going to be way, way lower. Somewhere in the range of less than $1,000.

So what do you think is the better deal? $27,000 or less than $1,000? Com'mon, should take a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

I guess she does have the option of quiting her low paying job with few or no benefits so that she would truly have an inability to pay for health care. Would that work for you, IndependentVoter?

Of course you are wrong..but you knew that....no cigar...if cannot pay it is free.

Your insinuation that they give it away free to anyone is wrong. And so is your assumption that access is no problem.

Not all women will qualify for their help, they may not meet the requirements and have to pay full price (which can get pricey), and like issues with women getting to Planned Parenthood, not all women will have direct access to one of their clinics due to distance or mobility problems.

Why in the world should a woman be made to go out of her way and maybe drive 50+ miles to a clinic to hopefully get her birth control at an affordable rate, when she can just go to her regular Dr and pharmacy and get it through the insurance that she already pays for?

Access is not the problem..that is a scare / fear tactic.

Nobody gets turned down because they cannot pay....deal with it.

I see your parroting skills are still spot-on, but please answer the question posed.

Why in the world should a woman be made to go out of her way and maybe drive 50+ miles to a clinic to hopefully get her birth control at an affordable rate, when she can just go to her regular Dr and pharmacy and get it through the insurance that she already pays for?

Nobody gets turned down because they cannot pay....deal with it.

It's not just as simple as walking in a clinic and saying, "Give me some pills". There are strict guidelines for a person to qualify for free services . . . deal with it.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nassau-county/free-birth-control-sti-testing-exams-21652.htm

Before your appointment, collect all of the documents listed below that you will need to apply. Without all of these documents, you may not qualify for free services.

WTB ..... While I agree that it is dumb that someone should have to drive 50 miles, my answer would be then that she needs to find a different insurance. There are plenty of private providers out there. This isn't an issue of whether or not someone should take BC. It is an issue (once again) of the government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong in order to continue down the road to a socialistic society. If I own a company, health insurance is a BENEFIT not a RIGHT. As the owner of that company, I should have the RIGHT to spend my money as I choose according to my belief system. If a person doesn't like my belief system, they are free to find employment elsewhere or find a different insurance to cover the needs they feel are important to them.

Johnnyj...

Private insurance is priced out of reach for many people, which is why so many rely on employee benefits.

The government has every right to regulate businesses in as far as they affect others (safety, health, environmental regulations ect). One of those regulations is that group health plans cover contraceptives, because they can be a vital component to women's health issues and a cost cutting measure for the insurance company. That's where the "right" part comes in, in that the insurance company covers women's sexual medication equally as they do men's.

If you are an employer and your business does not qualify for a religious exemption, and you want to (or have to) offer a group health plan for your employees you need to follow the law of the land (so to speak) and allow the insurance company to give the coverage that they have to give. Your business would need to qualify for a religious exemption, not you. Your personal religious beliefs do not get to negitivly affect others, when you deal with the general public, religious laws cannot not apply.

So actually it would be if you do not like the fact that insurance companies must now offer equal sexual medication group coverage for women as they do for men, then you have the option of not running a company, or keeping it small enough that you do not have to offer medical (good luck getting any decent employees though).

my answer would be then that she needs to find a different insurance. There are plenty of private providers out there.

Really great solution! In an economy where a bare-bones private family health insurance plan can cost as much as $1500 a month or more, you're actually seriously suggesting that this is a viable option?

I pay through my premium for all kinds of procedures, medicines, lifestyle choices, etc., that I personally never benefit from or made decisions to use.

Now even insurance is subject to the howls of Socialism and "I won't pay for [fill in the blank].

When some begin to question the very foundation of our capitalist society, we must have gone bonkers.

My personal religious belief is that high blood pressure medication is against God's will. So why should my insurance premiums be used to pay for your circulatory problems?

Get it?

Gorgon.. you are correct in saying that it's not my business to say if someone takes or doesn't take BC. That to me os not what the issue is here. The issue is the idea that the government can "force" a private company to do something that goes against their belief system - whether you agree with that belief or not. The women is this article has a choice - she can get another job, or get different insurance that covers what she needs. I had to do this myself. No biggie. I have no right to FORCE my company to provide an insurance plan that covers everything I feel that I need. This crap socialist idea that the government can force these businesses to do this is wrong.

SO any company can refuse any service to anyone they choose, just because they don't agree with the lifestyle of the person?

I call BS on that one.

What if you walked into a business, and they refused to sell you something, just because they didn't like the sound of your voice? Or if you had a gun rights or gun control t shirt on, and those running the business decided they didn't want to serve you(if they believed contrary to your views)?

If Viagra is covered by HC insurers, then so should BC.

No one is forcing anyone to use it.

Businesses must have fair business practices for ALL customers(no matter what the religious beliefs of the business owners). It doesn't matter that the hospital is owned or ran by a church. They receive governement $$, so the government has a right to make sure they operate fairly.

If they don't like it, they have the option to not take government $$, and can fund themselves.

Believe it or not American Lobo - I agree with you on your last sentence because this goes both ways. This isn't an issue of not "serving" someone. This is an issue of forcing a company to provide benefits for whatever reason. The company I work for only provides major medical. Because of this fact, I have only two choices, go work somewhere else, or purchase insurance somewhere else to cover my needs. I have no right to whine about the coverage I have or don't have through my employer. The government forcing an employer to provide certain "benefits" is yet another piece of the socialistic ideals that our current president holds.

The issue is the idea that the government can "force" a private company to do something that goes against their belief system - whether you agree with that belief or not.

Yes, just look at how that worked out for the banking industry.

This is an issue of forcing a company to provide benefits for whatever reason.

No one is forcing the insurance companies to provide contraception, they have agreed to the compromise that the president proposed. Because they know that it will mean that they pay less money in the long run.

And yep, your company provides crappy insurance, sucks for you. But if your company had a full group plan that provides things like ED medication, then they need to provide BC, your religious laws do not apply in this country.

If your next gripe is that employees should not have to pay into a group policy that covers contraception because it's against your religion, tough, get over it. If I have to pay into it so some 3 pack a day smoker can get medication for his lung cancer while I barely use the insurance at all (which btw, I have no problem with) then you have to pay into it for women to get BC. It's called group insurance for a reason.

for the record... I have no problem with birth control and I have no problem with paying into a group coverage that provides it. I just have a problem with government sticking their noses everywhere and the socialist ideals that go with it.

I just have a problem with government sticking their noses everywhere and the socialist ideals that go with it.

The government's job is to make sure that it's county's citizens are safe, secure and treated equally in order that we can pursue life liberty etc., it's what we pay them for, if they need to stick there noses into a business that affects citizens to insure equality then so be it.

If socialism means equal protection and treatment for citizens, and overall betterment of our country , then I'm all for it. Why aren't you?

This issue isn't about money.. It's about whether or not the government should be allowed to "force" a private company to go against their belief system -even if you disagree with that belief.

Well a company isn't a person to have a belief system. Walmart has a christian orientated belief system because of their Owners who are christian... but if they were forced to sell Walmart would it still have that belief system? No... because it's not inherent int he company, the company can not have a belief, it is not alive.

This is about people who think that because they don't want it the company they work for shouldn't even have to offer it. Guess what... they may run the company but they are not the company. It will go on without them.

since when? Let me see... If I OWN a company, then my belief system IS in fact the foundation of that company. So are you saying that if I choose to own a company, then i give up the right to run it the way I want to based on my personal belief system? Because if you are, then you are way off base.

And remember... we are also talking about a BENIFIT that the company offers!

In return for pay. I love how they think that just because it's called a benefit that the employee doesn't pay for it. Essentially instead of getting it in cash or paycheck, the company pays the insurance company. However, the employee does work for it.

And easy, a company can't have a belief because it's not alive. Companies don't think. If you own a company and decide to run it according to your beliefs, the beliefs are yours not the companies. If you die tomorrow, will your company still have those beliefs? Probably not because when someone else takes over they will mandate their beliefs.

But as long as I'm alive, I have the right to run the company the way I choose. If someone doesn't care for the health insurance offered to them, they have the right to go somewhere else or purchase other insurance. You are right, once i'm dead, the next owner (even if it's my children) may not keep the same value system - but that will be THEIR choice. Just like Chick-Fil-A has the right to stay closed on Sundays according to the OWNERS belief system. I am sure there are plenty of their employees that would love to get the hours on Sunday, but until a new owner (or owners) take over, things remain as the current personal belief system dictates.

No, you don't. You have the right to run the company as long as it is in compliance with the law. If you break the law you can lose your company.

And if the law says that the MINIMUM you must offer is X then you have to offer at the least X and no less. First they fine you, then they investigate you for criminal actions, then they try you. Even if you win, chances are you will have become such a liability to your company that they don't want you anymore or you have spent the money and your company still falls.

you are correct... and that is exactly my point. This is not an issue of whether a person should or shouldnt take BC, its an issue of whether or not the government has gone too far and I believe they have.

I don't really care whether people have their BC covered. If you cannot afford BC, then don't have sex. Sex is recreational in most relationships; I'm not paying your cable bill either.

If you take a medication that CAN be used for BC, but it's for an actual health issue I think it should be covered like any other treatment if you have insurance.

Sex is a normal, healthy part of an adult romantic relationship. Just because I don't want something growing in me and killing me doesn't mean I shouldn't have sex. It means take the proper precautions. In my case, I have to be on BC just for the blood loss. I get a period and don't stop. Heavy flow for weeks and weeks. My BC is necessary for not only my quality of life but my life itself. It has the added effect of keeping me from getting pregnant but even if I used it only to not be pregnant, it should still be covered because it helps with overall health. After all Pregnancy is very dangerous on it's own. Preventing it until a time where I or any other woman can schedule it to minimize health risks is a benefit to the company.

Johnny, just because you BELIEVE it has gone too far doesn't mean it is so. The only way to decide that is to test it by the strictures of the law, of the constitution and so far it has been proven to NOT be. The mistake is to believe this is about BC when it should be the question, "Can the government compel any company which is mandated to have insurance and does have a prescription plan to cover medications which are necessary to a person's health?" And the answer has been, Yes.

There is no upset at covering Blood Pressure meds. There is no upset for covering Metformin or Glipizide. There is no upset over covering meds for hair loss, erectile dysfunction, or rehab. All of these are routinely prescribed and covered. All of these are meds are considered necessary to a person's health whether physical or mental. So why is it different for BC?

So why is it different for BC?

Sadly, we all know the answer: Someone else's "god" says so.

If a couple want to have sex, but can't afford a contriceptive, they certainly can't afford to have a baby, and probably better settle for oral untill they can afford the $1.50 for the condom.

sheesh.

Well if the man can't get it up then he just needs to live with it. It isn't necessary to have sex. And if it is going to be oral it better be for both the female and male.

agreed!!

Can't find either a first or a second job? Too effing bad; you should have thought of that before you becme a peasant.

exactly, while I don't share your view on religion, I do agree that you need to find the right company to work for, and the right one would include the type of insurance plan you want/need.

You "forgot" one thing.... the state was paying the CC to do the adoption services. As such they were acting as agents of the state and the state can not discriminate. Adoption of children is not inherently religious in nature. If it had been the practice of sacraments or exorcisms then the religious exemption would have applied. However there is nothing inherently religious about placing children in homes. And seeing as they were willing to place the children in single parent homes, homes of different religions, and so forth as the state strictures do not allow discrimination against those groups so too when homosexuals became a protected class they could no longer discriminate against them.

Thank you for the explanation

Additionally, they were NOT forced to close down. They CHOSE to close down rather than comply with the laws. If you take government money, you comply with the law, period. Because they did not want to comply they decided to shut down instead. It was on THEM that they were so hateful against gay people that they chose to hurt children rather than do the right thing. In no way, shape or form is the Catholic Church a victim here and it's sickening that they are acting like they are. The truth is they are acting like a two year old having a temper tantrum because they aren't getting their way on everything. Too damn bad.

And as I said above the most pathetic thing is that they don't even see how bad they make themselves look over and over again. And they wonder why people are leaving the church and the right wing in droves. How stupid do you have to be to get that when all you preach about it is hate and sexism and taking away the rights of people who don't believe like you do that people might think you're crazy and deserve any support you have. These people are the best advertising the left could ever get.

Correction: to NOT get . . . and: deserve to LOSE any support you have. I ran out of time before I could fix it. Sorry about that.

Here is what I will not now or ever support. Public funds being used to pay for those items. Government mandates saying we have to supply them. No law making the available to people.

Do you reject the ACA altogether or just the part about birth control?

Rejected all together. We still do not have knowlege of everything and the effects in whole. A bill was passed without even knowing the facts. Wrong way to do it. The idea of we have to pass to find out what is in it is flawwed. Total rejection.

Concerned, that is an old and dis-proven talking point. Hell, I read the damn thing as it was available on-line long before it was passed.

She was taken out of context when that clip made the rounds...but, hey, no surprise another party would do such to their "rivals".

We still do not have knowle(d)ge of everything and the effects in whole.

No one knows every effect of implementation. At best, we can only take educated guesses and base them off similar legislation. Humans can not see the future.

I believe Ms. Pelosi was talking about the effects when she made that comment. After all the only way to see what unforeseen results would be to implement it and see what results. Everyone and CBO can predict certain trends but no one can prove what it definitely will do unless they put it into motion.

2000+ pages of legal papers. I can you this much. There was a lot that was not known when this was passed. They pointed out the good points and left the rest out.

No we cannot know the actual effects. But we do not even consider the possible effects when we are trying to push it through as a good thing. It is like a salesman. He pusshes the good things to sell you a lemon.