by Steph Sterling
We’ve all heard talk about the need to prevent unintended pregnancies. But for years, Congress has focused on new and creative ways to deny women access to abortions, without getting at the real root of the problem.
That’s why Congresswoman Nita Lowey and Senator Hillary Clinton recently introduced the Unintended Pregnancy Reduction Act (the “UPRA”). The bill’s acronym may be uninspired, but the bill itself is an inspired solution to the problem of unintended pregnancies.
The UPRA would give low-income women across the country access to contraceptive services to help prevent an unintended pregnancy on par with their access to pregnancy-related care if they do become pregnant. In other words, if a state will pay for a woman’s pregnancy-related care, it would also have to pay for a woman’s access to contraception. Greater access to contraceptive care is not only something women want and need, it also makes good public health sense. The Centers for Disease Control even listed family planning as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century.
Great. Yet another proposal to expand access to health care, you say. But how do we pay for it? Here’s the best part: this bill saves money.
A study funded by the Bush Administration found that existing programs in states as diverse as Alabama, Arkansas, and Oregon have each been able to save more than $15 million in a single year. According to the Guttmacher Institute, expanding these programs nationwide will save $1.5 billion a year when the program is up and running. That’s billion. With a ‘b.’
What’s more, estimates suggest that establishing parity between eligibility for contraceptive care and eligibility for pregnancy-related care would help nearly 500,000 women avoid an unintended pregnancy each year, reducing the number of unintended pregnancies in the United States by 15%.
Dozens of states have already figured out that expanding access to contraceptive care is good for women and good for their budgets. In fact, even states like Mississippi, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Texas have gotten in on the act.
Expanding eligibility for contraceptive care will maximize cost-savings to both federal and state governments, reduce the disparities in access to contraceptive care for low-income women, and prevent unintended pregnancies. What’s not to like?
Comments