2008 Woodie Awards
UI must continue to provide birth control to students
Editorial
DI Editorial Board
Issue date: 11/14/07 Section: Opinions
- < prev Page 2 of 2
Unprotected sex will inevitably become more prevalent if fewer students are able to acquire the proper birth control. As a result, pregnancy rates will increase in proportion. Furthermore, if unprotected sex flourishes, so, too, will STDs and STIs. Thus, the reduced availability of discount contraception is not merely the elimination of a privilege. It is a ubiquitous threat to the health and well-being of all students and, as such, a violation of student rights.
It seems that neither the government nor the UI will benefit from the lack of birth-control funding. The social and monetary costs of the reduced availability of cheap birth control outweigh any budgetary relief the process might provide. This is because birth control has the unique property of being an intrinsic cost-cutter. That is, by virtue of contraception's ability to prevent future monetary and social costs, its short-term costs are frequently balanced by its future savings. However, because the future benefits of birth control cannot be explicitly calculated, they are often ignored.
Thus, it is essential that discounted birth control becomes once again universally available to college students. The Deficit Reduction Act's negative impact on cheap contraception availability must be reversed. Furthermore, it is imperative that the UI consider the availability of cheap birth control a right, not a privilege. Yes, it is inconvenient to bear the burden of providing discounted contraception. But it is inexcusable to expect the students to incur the many costs associated with its absence.
It seems that neither the government nor the UI will benefit from the lack of birth-control funding. The social and monetary costs of the reduced availability of cheap birth control outweigh any budgetary relief the process might provide. This is because birth control has the unique property of being an intrinsic cost-cutter. That is, by virtue of contraception's ability to prevent future monetary and social costs, its short-term costs are frequently balanced by its future savings. However, because the future benefits of birth control cannot be explicitly calculated, they are often ignored.
Thus, it is essential that discounted birth control becomes once again universally available to college students. The Deficit Reduction Act's negative impact on cheap contraception availability must be reversed. Furthermore, it is imperative that the UI consider the availability of cheap birth control a right, not a privilege. Yes, it is inconvenient to bear the burden of providing discounted contraception. But it is inexcusable to expect the students to incur the many costs associated with its absence.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 12
wes
posted 11/14/07 @ 8:40 AM CST
"Clearly, abstinence education would be an ineffective method of preventing the spread of STDs throughout the UI's "experienced" students. Discounted birth control, however, is foolproof (literally). (Continued…)
Brian '99
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:03 AM CST
What? The University offered cheap condoms while I was there? Who knew and didn't tell me? Well, if I survived college buying my rubbers at the store, and managed to not knock anyone up, I think everyone else can as well. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:17 AM CST
"Unprotected sex will inevitably become more prevalent if fewer students are able to acquire the proper birth control. As a result, pregnancy rates will increase in proportion. (Continued…)
wes
posted 11/14/07 @ 9:27 AM CST
"Old enough to go to war for our country, old enough to buy your own damn birth control."
I agree with personal responsibility. I'd consider this more of an educational discount. (Continued…)
HD
posted 11/14/07 @ 11:16 AM CST
Do Kirkwood students get subsidized birth control? What about private liberal arts colleges. Do those students get cheap reproduction control?
Miketh
posted 11/14/07 @ 11:33 AM CST
Where do people invent these rights? Typical moronic crap. If you want something, just declare it your "right" and expect someone to give it to you. (Continued…)
cpd
posted 11/14/07 @ 12:41 PM CST
While, yes, individuals should exercise personal responsibility by consistently using condoms to prevent the spread of STD/STIs in addition to the prevention of unwanted pregnancies; however, we can't ignore the extreme cost difference between that of the the pill and that of over the counter methods. (Continued…)
brwilson81
concerned student
posted 11/14/07 @ 12:45 PM CST
The inconvenient truth is:
-if you get pregnant you can conveniently get an abortion
-if you get genital herpes, there is no convenient way out!
remember what we have learned at the UI with respect to the prestigious editors' assertions on STDs and birth-control: correlation implies causation! (see global warming)
and why are our liberal friends worried about accidental pregnancies?-- aren't we going to need more taxpayers to pay for Hillary's neosocialist programs (cradle to the grave entitlements)?
just a little food for thought. (Continued…)
Logan
posted 11/14/07 @ 3:36 PM CST
The birth control policy that the author is referring to is birth control pills which do not prevent against STD's. Maybe the author could be more clear on that pills do not provide any protection against STD, which hopefully the author understands. (Continued…)
Megan O
posted 11/14/07 @ 4:04 PM CST
If you're an adult on your parents insurance and "can't" tell them you want/need to get birth control, you have some growing up to do.
That being said, some students are uninsured, and $50 a pack for BC is pretty damn outrageous. (Continued…)
Post a Comment