CO Senate race: Gardner panders badly. (OTC contraception)

[politicat]

Cory Gardner thinks he needs the womenz votes, and thinks making contraception OTC is the way to get it.

From Colorado Independent:
Snip:

Gardner is more or less the GOP pioneer of this free-market birth control approach to combating both Democrats’ general allegations that his party is waging a war on women and Team Udall’s specific campaign emphasis on Gardner’s continued support of a federal personhood measure that could outlaw some forms of birth control.
The Udall campaign was quick to respond to Gardner’s latest ad on social media pointing out what they say is a serious contradiction in policy.

http://www.coloradoindependent.com/149030/co-senate-personhood-debate-pivots-to-over-the-counter-birth-control

**************

Here's why that's old thinking, faux feminism, and dangerous for Colorado consumers.

This would have been a better idea before ACA, I will admit. Then, the cost of contraceptives could be as much as $2000 a year, between pharmacy costs and the doctor's visit. However, since ACA went into effect, getting oral contraception is free for consumers. Colorado has an excellent exchange, meaning 95% of the state is covered by either employer provided insurance, an exchange policy or expanded Medicaid coverage. ACA covers physicals (including the contraceptive visit) and ACA means contraceptives are no copay. For a person with a uterus in Colorado, the only barrier to getting contraception is going to the doctor or the clinic, then the pharmacy. There is no out of pocket cost.

This is a good deal for both consumers, and for the insurers, since covering contraceptives is an order of magnitude or two cheaper than paying for prenatal, birth and infant care.

If contraceptives are OTC, then that no consumer cost goes away. Insurance doesn't cover OTCs. In the past several years, a number of my allergy meds have gone OTC. Every time that happens, I go from paying my $15 copay to at least $45 a month. True, too, with my spouse's reflux medication. I know for certain my insurer was not paying $45 a month for my scrip when it was still covered -- insurers can negotiate far better than individual consumers can. That reads to me like OTC is a means of profit skimming for the pharmaceutical companies and retail establishments. The price will eventually come down, but not to free to the end user.

Second, for persons on the margins of economic viability, that $45 a month out of pocket may just be too much. This is an old story, from the early days of contraception. 60 years ago, public health nurses always asked the fourth and fifth and sixth time mothers why they kept having children, and the answer was that condoms and diaphragms cost money; taking the chance that this time it won't happen is free. Worse, oral contraceptives take time to be effective, need to be taken regularly, and work less effectively if the user goes on and off frequently. When persons have a choice between getting to work or feeding the household or not getting pregnant, and they only have the money for one or two of those, they'll take the chance because not everybody gets pregnant every time they have sex.

Third, sex ed is in a miserable state in both Colorado and the United States. Many districts do not provide anything remotely like effective education on actual use of contraceptives; many are abstinence only. Oral contraceptives have an education curve that all users have to pass -- take them at the same time every day, take them every day, take them continuously, antibiotics make them less effective. The point of the appointment with the doctor to get the scrip is mostly patient education. There are a lot of Pill babies out there; no matter how effective in perfect use scenarios, reality intrudes. While actual use stats are far superior to no contraceptives, a person still has to learn how to use them.

Someone on the edge of economic survival will have months when a tire blows or a kid needs a field trip paid for, or a birthday is coming. The cost of the scrip will be the point of flexibility in the budget and going on and off the pill is both ineffective, and makes the risk of other problems higher.

But having oral contraceptives OTC will give the slut-shamers even more coverage than they already have. Oh, those irresponsible sluts! They will say. We gave them all the tools, let the free market do its job, and yet they still keep getting pregnant/wanting abortions/having children. They made their choice, so we need not pay for child care, or schools or their SNAP benefits. They should have thought it through before they removed the aspirin from between their knees. (If you think that's excessive, you haven't heard the Colorado Glibertarian crowd.)

Gardner has a miserable track record with reproductive rights and women's rights in general. He's a personhood advocate (no matter what he claims now, he's on the record) and favors the Hobby Lobby exemption and would deny rape survivors access to morning after coverage. This idea of his isn't to meant to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, it's a giveaway to the insurance and pharmaceutical companies at the expense of the citizens.

[madamesilverspurs]

1. Yup.

[politicat]

3. Great graphic!

So not a fan of Gardner. Really, really.

I hope to the FSM that this doesn't convince low information voters that he's in their court. Because on surface, it does sound good. (I know there have been times when I'd love to be able to pick up my scrips at 3 in the morning along with 6 cans of cat food and a bag of coffee at King Soopers, but then I think about it. The shops will either behind the counter it so only between 11:30 and noon on alternate Tuesdays anyway, or do the locked case, like razor blades. And nobody will be able to find the key at 3 AM anyway. Because reality.)

[Laelth]

2. Good article. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

[DavidDvorkin]

4. Not long ago, Nate Silver had Gardner at a 53% chance of beating Udall

I've been looking anxiously for very recent polls but haven't found any.

[politicat]

5. Current outside polls are even or with a slight Udall advantage.

Looking for citations. (Denver post has crappy search ability.)

It's gonna be a squeezer, and it's going to be a turnout election, but polling has been inconsistent and spotty (I.e. Land-line weighted, rural weighted, when the state is one of the more urbanized and cord-cutting around.) I've heard that internals are much better, and I've noticed that the Gardner campaign isn't releasing their internals. That usually means they're getting data they don't like hearing.

Mail ballots help a lot. It's mostly about getting people registered.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. Thanks. That's encouraging.