From: Melanie Furrer

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: contraception & preventative care coverage

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:01:34 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care. 

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

 I myself worked for a "religious employer" who did not cover birth control.

Fortunately, I was financially secure enough to afford the $70/month price of my

birth control of choice. Although my institution was "religious", many of my

coworkers were not, and they were restricted to the use of condoms or buying

their own birth control, many of whom could not afford it. Others claimed

extreme menstrual cramping, heavy bleeding and uncontrollable acne in order to

obtain a prescription for birth control that would be considered medically

necessary, and thus covered by insurance. An institution should not have the

right to restrict the reproductive choice of their female employees. If men

employed through this same institution were to request Viagra or Cialis from their

healthcare providers, it would be covered in full. I consider this blatant

discrimination; men are provided with everything they need to maintain a full and

active sex life, while women are made to pay. Furthermore, from a financial

perspective, it is cost effective to provide insurance coverage for birth control.

One year of a higher tiered prescription birth control, such as the Nuva Ring,

costs approximately $850; low tiered birth control, such as the pill, would cost

even less. One year of coverage of the prenatal care, delivery, and newborn

infant care (checkups, vaccines, treatment for possible illness) would cost

exponentially more. Delivery alone can cost as much as $20,000. If there are

any complications in the birth of the child, necessitating a stay in the NICU, the

cost will only increase from there, to as much if not more than $250,000. Not only

is "religious exemption" unfair, discriminatory and antiquated, it is fiscally

irresponsible. I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive

care by accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.

-- 
"y todo vive para que yo viva:

sin ir tan lejos puedo verlo todo:

veo en tu vida todo lo viviente."

~Pablo Neruda~ 

Sonnet VII