Here are some of the non-contraceptive medical reasons for which a woman may be prescribed birth control pills.

1. A 70% less chance of ovarian cancer over a 12 year period based on extensive studies.

2. Relief from menstrual pain.

3. Lighter menstrual blood flow during periods, and somtimes a day shorter.

4. Clearer skin. BC pills reduce blemishes including late adolescent acne.

5. Less PMS problems. Actual calming of personality swings.

6. 50% plus reduction in the incidence of, and 90% plus reduction in the severity of endometriosis.

Since I'm not a gynocologist or an internal medecine practioner I don't actually write birth control pill prescriptions. But, believe it or not, those of us who are surgeons actually learned all about it as well. Honest. We really did! And being female I kind of made it my business to learn all about this just in case I needed some non-contraceptive birth control medicine.

Mariah

PS. I am poking fun at some of you. I thought I'd better add this in case someone wasn't aware of that.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 10:57PM, catboxer wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:14PM, arielg wrote:

To treat the sexual activities of a woman as a heathcare issue is totally absurd. Clever as a political ploy, but absurd. 

How about the sexual activities of a healthy young stud who seeks same? Is that a health care issue?

I am not sure I understand what your point is here.

What I see happening is that this administration  did not succeed in passing universal healthcare and now they are trying to achieve the same  results through   unfunded mandates, by requiring insurance companies to provide all kinds of services, of which providing anticonceptives is probably the most absurd. 

   Of course, the insurance companies are going to pass the costs on to consumers.  That is why health care  insurance costs, the so-called Obama care,  are going up.

Big pharma and the healthcare insurance industries  have succeeded in convincing the public   that a government provided healthcare would be too expencive.  But the contrary is the case.   .  Nothing would be more expensive that the current system with big pharma and insurance monopolies calling the shots and the government  helping them along with it's mandates.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:04PM, REteach wrote:

some interesting stuff from Guttmacher:  

• Federal employees are guaranteed insurance coverage for contraceptives.[6] (hah! more do as I say, not as I do from our lawmakers!)

• Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives, which is three times the proportion that did so just a decade ago.[7]

• Twenty-seven states now have laws in place requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs in general to provide coverage for the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.[8]

The question isn't whether or not it should be covered, the question is whether or not it should be covered under 'preventative' care under the new ACA mandate that states preventative care should be free, i.e., no co-pay even, and that the insurance companies have to offer it at no cost.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 9:25AM, Ed.W wrote:

What GC said, and should a religious organization with a religious objection be forced to subsidize a product that is counter their beliefs.  Should the JW's be forced to cover blood transfusions in the insurance they provide to their employees even if some employees may be "secular"?

If my non-Jewish child was a student at a Jewish School, should I be able to demand that the school cafeteria provide my child pork from time to time for lunch, forcing the Jewish school to pay a portion of the cost of that pork, to handle that pork, to store that pork?  Handling, storage, procurement, spoilage have costs.

Lawmakers are not opposed to contraception coverage, so it's not "do as I say"...

Lawmakers are wondering if forcing the the Catholic church to neuter its stance against birth control by providing it to their employees violates the Establishment Clause.  Many lawmakers, myself, and certainly the church,  feels like the right to freely excercise their religion has been abridged with Barry Obama's regulation.

So what you are essentially saying is that the sensibilities of the employer should take precedence over the patient/doctor relationship. 

Insurance coverage is not and never has been 'free' to the employee.  The employee pays for the coverage through lower wages and salaries.  Is anyone arguing that in exchange for not covering contraception they will increase the employees wages? No.  Therefore, they are simply saying they want final approval over which medications are covered, and they claim on a religious basis the right to object and withdraw coverage in the event they disapprove of the treatment, even for those who do not share their religious views.

And the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church is that they have absolutely no objection to coverage of vasectomies!  Not one peep of objection!  Religious freedom - my ass!

The CC does not cover vasectomies.  And they would and have already objected to covering sterilization procedures.

There's a 10th amendment thread, where no one has a problem with the Feds dictating how the gift of Federal money is spent,

but when the insurance company and the employer provide money to pay for health care, suddenly you want the payer to have absolutely NO say in how the money is spent.

Of course the difference is who actually gets the money.  In the former case your mayor gets the money, and you want someone to bind him or her.

But in the insurance case YOU get the cash, and you don't want to be bound.

I'm sure if the federal government block granted money straight to your mailbox you'd suddenly have a problem with the payer controlling how it is spent.