Requiring health insurance plans to cover birth control is a good thing.
Debate Rounds (3)
The Affordable Care Act has been expanded to require insurance providers to include preventative care for women without cost sharing. The requirement for preventative measures included in the Act is that there be strong scientific evidence of their health benefits. Methods of birth control are included within these preventative measures, and include birth control pills, IUD, the ring and the morning after pill.
I am arguing that it is completely justified that these birth control methods are required to be covered by new insurance plans in the United States without cost sharing.
First, the birth control pill and similar contraceptives should be covered because they have many medical uses other than contraceptive. They can be used to reduce or remove symptoms of periods and PMS, which can be very uncomfortable and painful for some women It also allows to regulate when their periods occur, which, if you've ever woken up in the morning to find blood stains on the sheets because your period isn't in any way regular, is a very useful thing.
There are also at least a couple medical conditions that are treated by these contraceptives. One is endometriosis, an abnormal growth of the uterine lining which can cause severe pain, scarring and infertility. Contraceptives like the birth control pill can not only reduce the pain, but also reduce the build up of the uterine lining. Another medical condition these treat is ovarian cysts, the symptoms of which include pain, bloating, bleeding and infertility.
Second, all types of contraceptive help to prevent a serious medical condition that may have permanent effects on a woman's health and well-being, in some cases leading to death. Pregnancy has a huge impact on a woman's health, and women need to be able to control when they get pregnant. A list of complications is available at womenshealth.gov. To start off with, there are a long list of preexisting conditions that can complicate a pregnancy, including a lot of common ones like asthma, diabetes and high blood pressure. Women getting pregnant with a medical condition need to be able to prevent unwanted pregnancy to protect their health. For example, high blood sugar from diabetes during pregnancy can harm the fetus, and a pregnancy can worsen long term complications of diabetes.
The following are many of the complications of pregnancy: anemia, depression, ectopic pregnancy, gestational diabetes, high blood pressure, hyperemesis gravidarum (severe, persistent nausea), miscarriage, and preeclampsia, which causes high blood temperature and possible organ damage. This doesn't include the normal physical and emotional stresses of a pregnancy.
Without contraceptives, the choices are pretty much regular abortions or carrying unwanted babies to term. Both of these are more emotionally and physically taxing than simply taking a pill or using one of the other forms of contraceptive made more available by the Act.
Thanks in advance to whoever takes up the con side of the debate.
Sexual activity is a choice, and by making the choice to engage in regular sexual activity we accept the consequences and costs of living that lifestyle. Furthermore, sex without the intent to conceive is recreational in nature and the tax payers shouldn't be obliged to pay for your recreational activities. While some contraceptives may have positive side effects and might prevent certain feminine problems we must remember that the primary use of contraceptives is to prevent pregnancy and that there are alternatives to contraceptives that have the same preventative effects, if not better.
Lack of sex is not a medical condition, people do not have to have sex to survive. Don't get me wrong, we do have to have sex to reproduce and the medical problems that come with pregnancy are immense. This is why I approve of preventative prenatal care, and it's also why the government required insurance companies to cover prenatal care in the original Affordable Care Act. While pregnancy is a choice and it isn't a condition necessarily forced on a woman, reproduction is a fundamental need for our society. Creating new citizens and replacing the old is vital to the health of our Republic.
This same argument cannot be made for contraceptives. While it's true that nobody should have a child before they are ready, it is also true that you shouldn't be having sex until you're ready. Furthermore just because the government isn't giving you free contraceptives doesn't mean you can't practice safe sex. It costs $2 for a box of condoms, which not only prevents pregnancy, but they also do something birth control pills and similar contraceptives can't do; they protect against STDs.
My opponent's main argument is that contraceptives have benefits other than preventing pregnancy. While I believe that a drug or medical procedure should be included or excluded based on it's primary function, I will briefly review the conditions she listed. In the case of oral contraceptives preventing endometriosis, the studies have been found to be unsubstantiated due to faulty and biased studies. The review of these studies was conducted by a non-partisan institution. 
In regards to infertility, which my opponent mentioned, it is not prevented by contraceptives such as birth control. In a way this is a loaded argument, because in regards to sexual intercourse and contraceptives, the only thing that can cause infertility are STDs and oral contraceptives do not protect against STDs. Furthermore, certain oral contraceptives (Norplant) can actually cause infertility. Experts agree that the best way to prevent infertility is to actually abstain from sex, and/or to have regular check ups to ensure there aren't any abnormalities. Really the only contraceptive that in any abstract way helps prevent infertility is condoms. 
My opponent also mentioned abnormal vaginal bleeding and growth. While this can be prevented by stopping ovulation with oral contraceptives, the use of the drug progesterone is used to treat these conditions as well as prevent future cases. If a woman is found at risk of having these problems, she should be covered for a drug that is specifically meant to treat and prevent them, rather than a contraceptive. 
Another problem my opponent mentioned was uterine scarring, which I assume refers to Asherman's Syndrome; the bleeding and scarring of the uterine line. Asherman's Syndrome is another example where there is an actual drug and treatment designed specifically to treat the condition. In this case the drug is misoprostol, and it's been proven to be effective in the treatment and prevention of Asherman's Syndrome. 
Lastly my opponent brought up the issue of PMS, a problem that nearly all women have. Conventional wisdom and medical science have determined that the best way to lessen the discomfort and pain of PMS, is for a woman to maintain a healthy and physically active lifestyle. While certain contraceptives can outright prevent PMS, we have to remember that PMS isn't a life threatening condition or even a debilitating one. It's a condition that occurs naturally and it's a natural part of a woman's life, and if she doesn't want it she can just buy contraceptives herself and prevent her cycle from taking place. 
In conclusion, sex without the intent to conceive is recreational and contraceptives should be excluded or included in coverage based on it's primary function. If we were to judge drugs based on pseudo-science and alleged positive side effects, we'd be prescribing Asprin to cancer patients.
lavender_falling forfeited this round.
MrBrooks forfeited this round.
lavender_falling forfeited this round.
MrBrooks forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Both FFd, but con was able to refute pros args, con didn't. Therefore con wins. Sources as they where properly cited.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.