From Elaine Karls
Monroe
To the editor:
Currently, most health insurance plans are required to cover contraception. The Trump administration has recently proposed a rule change to make it easier for businesses to get out of providing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. A Denver Post editorial, reprinted in your newspaper, criticized this proposed change because it "calls into question the Institute of Medicine's determination that contraception is an important part of preventive health care" and because "the draft rule even says that contraception has the unintended consequence of making unwed teens more promiscuous."
The Post article misses a most important point: What sort of "medicine" is contraception? Hormonal birth control pills are the most widely prescribed means to prevent pregnancy. Other birth control measures work by putting a chemical or foreign object into a woman's body to prevent her system from functioning normally. Some of the side effects of the pill and other forms of hormonal contraception can include blood clots, headaches, weight gain, nausea, irregular or diminished periods, mood swings, loss of libido, depression and other psychological disorders. Studies have also shown a link to breast cancer. The pill also works to thin the lining of the uterus, so that if an egg cell is fertilized, it will have difficulty implanting and be sloughed off in an early abortion. Are women being informed of the side effects and risks of contraception? Many concerned women are finding information about modern fertility awareness is a better way to plan their families than putting harmful chemicals into their bodies.
Additionally, I am surprised that the proposed rule change is criticized because it suggests providing contraception to unwed teens can promote more sexual activity. Isn't that logical? Taking away the natural consequences of sexual activity (possible pregnancy) removes a major reason to avoid the activity. Our government is not helping our young unwed women by providing them with contraceptives.
So should businesses and insurance companies be allowed to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons, or any reason for that matter? What is really better for the health of women of any age?
Monroe
To the editor:
Currently, most health insurance plans are required to cover contraception. The Trump administration has recently proposed a rule change to make it easier for businesses to get out of providing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. A Denver Post editorial, reprinted in your newspaper, criticized this proposed change because it "calls into question the Institute of Medicine's determination that contraception is an important part of preventive health care" and because "the draft rule even says that contraception has the unintended consequence of making unwed teens more promiscuous."
The Post article misses a most important point: What sort of "medicine" is contraception? Hormonal birth control pills are the most widely prescribed means to prevent pregnancy. Other birth control measures work by putting a chemical or foreign object into a woman's body to prevent her system from functioning normally. Some of the side effects of the pill and other forms of hormonal contraception can include blood clots, headaches, weight gain, nausea, irregular or diminished periods, mood swings, loss of libido, depression and other psychological disorders. Studies have also shown a link to breast cancer. The pill also works to thin the lining of the uterus, so that if an egg cell is fertilized, it will have difficulty implanting and be sloughed off in an early abortion. Are women being informed of the side effects and risks of contraception? Many concerned women are finding information about modern fertility awareness is a better way to plan their families than putting harmful chemicals into their bodies.
Additionally, I am surprised that the proposed rule change is criticized because it suggests providing contraception to unwed teens can promote more sexual activity. Isn't that logical? Taking away the natural consequences of sexual activity (possible pregnancy) removes a major reason to avoid the activity. Our government is not helping our young unwed women by providing them with contraceptives.
So should businesses and insurance companies be allowed to opt out of providing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons, or any reason for that matter? What is really better for the health of women of any age?
