• Share

President Obama really put his foot in it with the birth control mandate. So far, he has had to backtrack, rearrange his wording and then some. It certainly hurt his standing with many Democratic Catholics who were partially responsible for him getting into office. Aside from the blatantly obvious religious argument, there is a troubling bigger picture to look at if you take a step back. By taking that step back and looking at the actual implications and consequences of the law, the real problems go beyond just a religious argument.

So what’s the real problem? The fact that President Obama is trying to get companies to give free birth control to individuals. On the surface, it looks good and sounds good until you start looking at the financial implications of such a plan. It is these implications that basically make the entire plan unfeasible. Because the question then becomes: who is going to pay for these free birth control pills? According to President Obama’s plan, that would be employers and insurance companies.

Again sounds good right? The employer and/or insurance company pays everything and doles out free pills. That is until you get your insurance bill; then you realize that those free birth control pills have also raised your insurance rate. So while it might be free at the pharmacy counter, it really isn’t free. This is because the costs of supplying those pills get rolled into the overall plan.

The counter argument is that, well, not every woman needs birth control pills. But if you are part of a package insurance plan, then you are probably already paying for services that you would never use. So, the extra costs of birth control pills will basically get thrown in there as well, causing rates to go up. Individual plans might fare better on this regard, but still those extra costs are going to get added in somewhere. Insurance companies are out to make money. If this means charging you more to make up for a Federal mandate, then they will do it. Don’t be fooled in this regard.

Oh wait? Wasn’t there some sort of promise made by President Obama not to raise rates? Yes, this mandate would be just another broken promise by a politician.

Now, let’s look at the employers who would have to cover the cost as well. Depending on the insurance plan and company, the employers will also have to take an additional look at the costs of this added expense. In short, it just adds to the cost to insure women. If an employer is looking at the overall costs of hiring a single man over a single woman and the insurance costs are higher for the woman because of the mandate, who do you think they will hire? Obviously, it will be the cheaper one. Could you prove discrimination in this case? No, it would in fact be impossible. Just this alone puts women at a disadvantage on the job market.

As far as the legality goes, the lawsuit arguments will be based on the First Amendment. There will certainly be lawsuits if this goes into effect. More than likely, it will wind up in the Supreme Court. Now, if you look at the past history of the Supreme Court on First Amendment issues, you will see that they have sided with the First Amendment numerous times. One of the more recent cases First Amendment cases was The Westboro Church vs Military Funerals where the Supreme Court ruled the protests could happen. The chances of the President winning based on the past precedent of First Amendment Supreme Court rulings are very small even with the liberal judges.

The problem is not that women should get birth control. The problem is the President mandating who should pay for it regardless of who receives it. The end result is higher costs. It might be all zeroes on the cash register but don’t be fooled because that money is going to come from somewhere.