(Statement attributable to Sean Tipton, Director of Public Affairs, American Society for Reproductive Medicine)
Critics have attacked provisions in the economic stimulus bill that would increase and improve access to reproductive health services. They have explicitly criticized, and mischaracterized, a provision about contraception, and now critics are going after money slated for the sexually transmitted disease prevention program at the CDC.
The contraceptive program in the bill would not have cost the federal government one cent. It simply would have made it easier for states, if they chose, to spend their own money to increase access to family planning programs. This would have allowed more women access to birth control products—products made and sold by the pharmaceutical industry, an industry many of these critics usually support. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is also good for the economy, keeping more people in the work force, making more money and contributing to the GDP. Preventing unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions and fewer demands for social services.
STD prevention works in roughly the same way. Keeping people healthy means they need to use products. Someone needs to sell those products. Keeping people healthy also keeps them working, rather than spending their days at the doctor’s office.
It is disappointing that of all the ways money is being spent in this bill, it is the provisions designed to improve the reproductive health of our citizens that seem to be attracting the most criticism. I would hope that our nation's law makers were mature enough to discuss the very serious and important issues surrounding reproductive health with the gravity these issues deserve; instead, they sound like middle-schoolers giggling during health class.
Recent Comments