As the result of a recent twist caused by the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, the price of oral contraceptives on campus has risen dramatically. The price increase, which is an unintentional side effect of the legislation, has quadrupled costs in some places and is affecting colleges nationwide as well as some 400 community health centers. The legislation sought to remove incentives that encouraged pharmaceuticals to provide oral contraceptives to university health clinics and low-income communities at significantly reduced prices.
Regardless of one's stance on birth control, it seems clear that a price increase on contraception is advantageous to no one. Even staunch critics of birth control should be able to agree that making contraceptives cost-prohibitive for some students is only a partial and unfair way of banning it outright.
A more pressing argument, leaving aside the birth control debate, asks why presumably overprivileged undergrads need help paying for birth control in the first place. We don't think this holds much weight when considering either the need for low-cost contraceptives or the ramifications of the 2005 legislation. The question this legislation poses is - first and foremost - about women's health. And it's not just college women: It is worth remembering that low-income community centers have also felt the legislation's effects. Some women who had used the lower-priced contraceptives have switched to generics or more harmful alternatives, like the morning after pill. The need for contraceptives hasn't disappeared; the options, in turn, shouldn't be restricted. We believe that legislation should be amended to undo the effects of the Deficit Reduction Act as quickly as possible. What revealed itself as an unforeseen aftereffect should not become a conscious mistake.
Considering the fact that the earlier subsidies came directly from drug manufacturers and left tuition unaffected, meaning that colleges were not subsidizing the sale of contraceptives, the easy question is why not have the health center intervene? Many arguments can be rolled out against such a policy of subsidized contraceptives. The most formidable seems to be: Why should tuition dollars go to paying for someone else's birth control? First, this would be a temporary measure aimed at easing the burden created by the law. Once it is amended, university subsidies would stop. Second, this is a question of student health. Considering some of the places university funds are being directed, including clubs and events like Strawberry Fest, we doubt that a slight increase in funding for the university health center would be either a heavy burden or an unwise decision. If anything, working to preserve student health seems like common sense to us.
Be the first to comment on this article!