The birth control canard

Depending on which group is issuing the indignant statement, the new Trump administration rule changing the scope of Obamacare’s free birth control mandate is either an attack on women’s health, an attempt by the government to “control” women’s bodies or a threat to women’s very lives. State Attorney General Maura Healey has already announced plans to sue, of course, arguing that religious beliefs will now “replace the basic right of a woman to care for herself.”

Yes, because what this debate needs is yet another lawsuit!

The rule does indeed acknowledge the beliefs and consciences of some employers — which the original mandate failed to do. That’s how the Obama administration found itself in the odious position of fighting an order of Catholic nuns (among others) who felt their objection to artificial contraception should exempt them from having to pay for free birth control for their employees.

In fact, it is that notion expressed by Healey — that only by having access to no-cost contraception are women able to “care for” themselves — that got the nation into this mess. Birth control is a prescription, and a matter between a woman and her doctor — not a woman and her employer.

That’s what makes the “hands off my birth control” mantra so absurd. Those who insist that free birth control is some kind of constitutional right were the ones who dragged private employers and the federal government into the conversation to begin with.

The vast majority of women will continue to have access to no-cost or low-cost birth control under the new rule. In Massachusetts, insurers and advocates have worked on legislation that, if it becomes law, will serve as a work-around. The idea that women will be dropping dead because they might have to come up with a co-payment for the pill is just nonsense.