Copyright 2000 The Courier-Journal
The
Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY.)
February 23, 2000, Wednesday MET/METRO
SECTION: FORUM Pg.10a
LENGTH: 608 words
HEADLINE:
READERS' FORUM; BILL TO REQUIRE COVERAGE OF CONTRACEPTIVES
SOURCE: READER
BODY:
'Basic health care'
I am writing in support of House Bill
450 and appreciated your editorial doing the same. This bill would require
insurance policies that cover prescription drugs to cover contraceptive drugs
and procedures as well. I am dumbfounded that there are those who believe this
bill is somehow subversive!
Contraceptive services are part of basic
health care, allowing families to both adequately space desired pregnancies and
avoid unintended pregnancy. The lack of contraceptive coverage
in health insurance plans places many effective forms of contraceptives beyond
the financial reach of many women, leading to unintended pregnancies. It is
essential for women's health to plan and space pregnancies, unless we are saying
that the alternative of 12-15 pregnancies during a woman's lifetime is medically
acceptable. And I don't believe we are.
This bill should be a nobrainer,
unless once again women's health care is being singled out for exclusion.
Eighty-two percent of Preferred Provider Organizations (PPOs), 67 percent of
Point of Purchase (POS) networks, and 61 percent of HMOs do not routinely cover
the five primary reversible contraceptive methods: oral contraceptives, IUD
insertions, diaphragm fitting, Norplant insertion and Depo-Provera injection.
Coverage of all five methods is critical to women's health care since not all
methods are appropriate for all women.
Please, legislators, is it not
time to bring women's health care into the new millennium and join 10 other
states so far that have passed similar legislation? I pray you will do so.
Rev. MARY J. KUHNS
Louisville 40223
'Deeply disturbing'
The recent debate in the General Assembly over House Bill 450, which
would require medical insurers to cover contraceptives and outpatient
birth-control procedures, was deeply disturbing.
The Feb. 9 story
reported one faith-based institution's efforts to use its religious beliefs
politically to control Kentuckians' access to health care. The institution's
lobbyist shaped her argument to suggest that individuals have never before
struggled between following their religious principles and buying health care
that may include coverage for treatment they find objectionable. Many are aware
that this is not a new issue; people have frequently been confronted with
reconciling their personal, private values with public obligations.
The
debate was disturbing because women's future access to medical care was being
threatened by a lobbyist representing not a medical or health care group but a
religious organization.
Faith-based institutions should have the right
to provide their employees with health insurance policies that do not conflict
with their beliefs. However, if this same institution receives federal or state
funds or provides medical services to people who do not share the institution's
religious beliefs, then it should not be allowed to intervene in efforts to make
medical services as convenient and as affordable as possible to everyone,
particularly services that could prevent more costly medical procedures.
In the course of passing laws, legislators at times must reach a
consensus in their views concerning the separation between religious and state
policy. In health-related matters, they should not pass laws that do any of the
following: deny access to affordable health care, lead to costly medical
procedures, or ignore one's right to participate in her own health care based on
consultation with her physician and in accordance with her own values and
beliefs. Failing to pass House Bill 450 would do all three.
KATHY KREMER
Louisville 40204
LANGUAGE: English
LOAD-DATE: February 24, 2000 
