• About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
The Wellesley News -
  • News and Features
    • Four Cases of COVID-19 Reported During Winter Break
      Four Cases of COVID-19 Reported During Winter Break
    • Students With Medically Restricted Diets Struggle to Eat On Campus
      Students With Medically Restricted Diets Struggle to Eat On Campus
    • Students find new ways to celebrate Diwali
      Students find new ways to celebrate Diwali
    • News
      • News in Brief
      • Nation & World
      • President’s Corner
      • Senate Report
    • Features
      • Alumnae Spotlight
      • Eye on Science
      • Faculty Focus
      • LGBTQIA+ Column
  • Opinions
    • Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
      Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?
    • The block system is a joke
      The block system is a joke
    • Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
      Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls
    • Staff Editorial
    • Letters to the Editor
    • The Elephant in the Room
  • Arts
    • Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
      Music Performance Courses Adapt to an Altered Semester
    • Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
      Ben Wheatley’s adaptation of “Rebecca” fails to deliver compared to its classic counterpart
    • “Dash & Lily” Find Love, Stranded
      “Dash & Lily” Find Love, Stranded
    • Arts In The News
    • Reviews
    • Music Peek
  • Health and Wellness
    • No image
      Athletic impacts of Covid-19
    • No image
      A new kind of PE
    • No image
      Maintaining wellness as the cold sets in
    • Athlete of the Week
    • Boston Sports Update
    • The Vegan Digest
    • The SHE Corner
  • Miscellanea
    • No image
      Remote students experience existential crises; change class years in email signatures
    • President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
      President’s Column: The Butterfly Effect
    • Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
      Your next on-campus romance isn’t going to work out
    • The Artichoke
    • The Dose
    • The Olive Branch
    • Multimedia
      • Galleries
      • Infographics
      • Videos
By Andrea Jackson OpinionsOctober 1, 2014

GOP bill ignores cost of birth control

Republican senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and a slew of other Republican senators introduced the “Preserving Religious Freedom and a Woman’s Access to Contraception Act” to the Committee on Finance this past July. The new legislation proposed by Ayotte would allow women to buy birth control pills over the counter without a prescription. The Republican senator’s legislation is problematic because insurance companies are not obligated to pay for over-the-counter drugs. Unless the Republican bill to legitimize prescription-free contraception is paired with a bill that forces insurance companies to cover over-the-counter medications, women’s accessibility to contraceptives will be stifled.

The biggest let down about the Republican legislative proposal is that it will only urge the FDA to study over-the-counter sales. It is not an effective policy that will be implemented immediately. Instead, if passed, it will take years for the FDA to run scientific evaluations of oral contraceptives’ safety and efficiency and before allowing contraceptives to be sold over-the-counter.

Opposers of the legislation argue that it is merely a reaction to Democratic claims of the GOP’s “War on Women” and is just a tactic to entice women voters. The proposal is an unexpected move by the Republican Party because of the GOP’s tendency to reject similar legislation.

As previously noted, the idea of offering birth control pills over-the-counter is not a new idea. It is a simple and obvious idea, and many developing countries have allowed the sale of over-the-counter birth control pills. The result of over-the-counter birth control pills in these countries is one anyone would expect: lower rates of undesired pregnancies and higher accessibility to contraceptives.

Adversaries of the proposal argue that allowing birth control pills to be purchased without a prescription will actually raise the cost of contraceptives for women, specifically uninsured lower-class women.

According to Paul Waldman, a writer for the Washington Post, uninsured women would pay $600 a year for over-the-counter birth control pills. Interestingly, the Obamacare plan would not cover the cost of over-the-counter medications, which do not qualify for Obamacare’s zero-out-of-pocket policy.

The affordability of birth control pills is a huge obstacle that many lower and middle-class women face. While there may be other obstacles such as which pill to take or how women will get advice from their doctor, none are as stifling as the price tag attached to a woman’s health care. Once this obstacle is defeated, then perhaps all the other details can be addressed.

Share on

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Google +
  • LinkedIn
  • Email
Previous articleMillennials gain from postponing adulthood
Next articleRepublicans must include more women in party base

You may also like

A piece of pizza missing topings.

Wellesley, why can’t you meet our dietary needs?

The block system is a joke

Spineless nonpartisanship: how the Girl Scouts convinced me they no longer care about girls

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Email Newsletter

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

Top Articles

  • Four Cases of COVID-19 Reported During Winter Break

Recent Tweets

Tweets by @Wellesley_News

The independent student newspaper of Wellesley College since 1901.

Sign up to receive our weekly digest in your inbox

* indicates required

  • About
  • Editorial Board
  • Advertise
  • Join Us
  • Archives
COPYRIGHT © 2021 THE WELLESLEY NEWS
Back to top