Her post is at Female Finance: Birth Control Costs
She gives a nice look at a bunch of different birth control and its prices/effectiveness and breaks it down like this:
For the record, I consider birth control a necessary health product. My motto is condoms+ - condoms plus another form. No babies, no babies, no babies.To sum it up, here are the options I’ve come up with so far, all in pre-tax dollars:
- Condoms: Maybe $150/yr, but not enough protection
- NuvaRing: $600/yr
- The Pill: Estimated $300/yr
- IUD: ??? One time (per 10 yrs) cost of $300+
- Abstinence: $0, but perhaps my happiness and/or my boyfriend
Gosh we women get ripped off. . . (Although any male paying $50/mo for condoms has my sympathy too.) Also, why aren’t feminine hygiene products eligible for my HSA spending but band-aids are? The sort of do the same thing. Ok, not at all, but still! I consider them a necessary health product but I guess they aren’t.
The entire post is interesting if you want to see how different methods compare, and the comments are another good place to get an idea of how much people are spending on birth control, anywhere from free to $5 to $55.
Posts
42 comments:
Thanks for the post, Lindsay. I think this is an important topic that effects more people than we know. I'm glad you found that blog!
On top of all the money I spend on razors to shave my legs, brushes to comb my long hair, Draino to unclog that long hair from my shower, makeup to cover up my natural face, tweezers to pluck my body hair, accessories to appear suitably feminine and well-of, shoes for a variety of occasions, panty-hose, pads, tampons, diet food, fresh "natural" foods, diet books, weights, treadmills, anti-aging serums, acne treatments, hair clips, hair products, expensive blow dyers and straighteners, nail polish, well-fitting bras, contacts to not look like a geek, perfume, fancy soaps, candles, and bubblebath, I have to be the one responsible for birth control too.
Did I mention that the "manly" things such as electronics, cars, and sports equipment are also something that I have to purchase? It's not like there is some equivalent need to purchase lots of blue shit to the feminine performance need of purchasing pink shit. The things that guys like are things that I like. The things that I have to buy to not look like a Neanderthal and a bra-burning dyke (god forbid) can run up to hundreds of dollars per month.
No suitable equivalent expenditures exist for men. Hell, if they have trouble popping boners, they can get that covered by the state. But if women want to have healthy babies and take prenatal vitamins, well, you're shit out of luck.
Personally, I see this when I compare the money I spend per month versus the amount of money my brother spends. My parents have the unfortune to put two kids through college at the same time. However, I always seem to blow through my monthly stipend faster than my brother, regardless of the fact that I work 30 hours a week and he barely gets 15 hours in at the local fastfood joint (I work in an advocacy office). We drive similar cars. He goes out more than me, but I eat out more. He drinks more beer, but I see more live music. We both pay about the same in rent. He owns a dog, and I own two cats. We both shop at Ross and off-the-rack places.
Yet, my budget is always stretched tight. While my brother blows his paycheck on video games and beer, I scrape together pennies for gas. My parents seem to think that my brother is more financially responsible.
What they don't get, and what the world doesn't get, is that being suitably feminine is ludicrously expensive. No amount of Ladies' Nights of free beer can ever make up the hundreds of dollars I have to spend on birth control, condoms, and pink shit because I wasn't born with a Y chromosome.
On a macro-level, wage statistics show that women are also likely to make less. So while men get to spend their dough on toys, we get to spend our considerably smaller pile on pink shit lest we be labeled ugly, fat, or dyke-ish.
The potential problem, I forsee, Jen, is that some people may argue that some of those expenditures are not "necessary." I do not spend very much money at all, but that is because of choices I make.
Yes, I think there are major problems with society telling females how to dress/behave in order to appear "female-enough," but that does not mean that females have no option but to buy into those perceptions.
I think that the society needs to change, not women necessarily, but women always have the option (although doing this could easily have poor social consequences). I guess I'm trying to play devil's advocate, but I'm also speaking from my personal experience - from the sounds of it, I probably spend less money than you, but I'm sure I spend more than some of my guy friends.
Sorry if this comes off as offensive. I'm really just trying to further discussion.
Jen -
Firstly, a vast majority of the things you list you do not HAVE to buy. none of that is required with the exception of pads, tampons, and clothes. The rest are all something you buy based on personal choice - no one is forcing you to buy the fancy soaps, candles and bubblebath. That's all you.
Secondly... I'm not for this, but seriously if you're going to complain about this please recognize that they have this wonderful thing called a planned parenthood clinic - they have free condoms and free birthcontrol if you u cannot afford to purchase it on your own.
All American Girl, I totally called your argument before you even made it. But I think that if you are all for women quitting their "complaining" about spending so much money on protection, you also have to be for clinics like Planned Parenthood that help provide birth control for people. Your views seem to contradict themselves.
I say that people and society in general stop judging women so harshly based on their appearance of femininity and also help pay for birth control.
Amelia - congrats on calling an argument before I made it. Woo hoo. Do you want a cookie or something?
And secondly my views are not contradictory. If you feel the need to complain about the "high costs" of birth control, then go to a free clinic and stop your whining - you have other options available to you. It is what they are around for. I personally, do not use Planned Parenthood clinics because I am against them, and I buy my own birth control. Which is not as expensive as you all are claiming. Especially because it is covered by insurance.
I know my birth control actually runs $50 a month, but I pay $10--that is until my insurance runs out. My parent's insurance only covers me so long as I'm a full time student, and since I have to take a year off before going on to grad school, I'm screwed :/. Planned parenthood only gives free birth control pills away around here if you have no income, otherwise you have to pay something, and I could end up paying more there than I do with insurance.
"I buy my own birth control. Which is not as expensive as you all are claiming. "
How would you know what I pay? My birth control costs $50 without insurance, that's two times the average cited in the post for yearly cost. With insurance I pay less than half the average yearly cost, so prices pretty obviously vary.
I would also like to briefly mention the fact that (good) insurance can be expensive, and so a lot of people are limited as to if/what kind of insurance they can afford. But insurance costs are highly variable as well...but so is the coverage.
Just throwing that out there.
And not everyone is covered by insurance, or meet the income qualifications to get free birth control. While I'm pretty concerned with the price I'm paying, I'd be quite all right with letting Planned Parenthood give out their free birth control to people who have no insurance or less income or more demands for their disposable income.
If PP had to choose between giving me, a grad student still under my parent's insurance with (some) leeway on how I spend my income, and a woman living in poverty with mouths to feed and certain fixed expenses every month, I'd want them to pick the other woman.
I thought the comment of $50/moth for condoms was excessive, so I actually went to Wal-mart to do some research. At Wal-mart, a 12-pack of Durex was about $5.00 (not exactly, but close enough for argument.)At $5 per pack, it would take 10 packs to equal $50 per month. that would mean that this individual was using about 120 condoms in a month, or about 4 per day. That seems excessive to me.
If Lindsay's post really prompted you to go do some research, Curious, I think that's cool.
Anyway, I think that the figure in the article was $150/year for condoms, which would be $12.50/month. I wasn't quite sure where the $50/month came from when I went back to the original post. I might have missed something.
Anyway, if a lower-income person decides to be sexually active, and is sexually active for many years, even $5/month can be expensive. And why shouldn't people be allowed to have sex if they choose to just because of the costs?
I am just trying to think outside of myself. $5/month might be doable for me, but perhaps it is not for everyone.
Gosh we women get ripped off. . . (Although any male paying $50/mo for condoms has my sympathy too.) Also, why aren’t feminine hygiene products eligible for my HSA spending but band-aids are? The sort of do the same thing. Ok, not at all, but still! I consider them a necessary health product but I guess they aren’t.
Also, if this individual was with a good guy, he should probably split the costs with her, and if they limited (not completely stopped) the amount htey had sex, they could get it down to $2.50 apiece monthly with easy, and still be having sex about 3x a week.
I understand where you saw the stat, but I don't know where the number was derived from. Anyway, I think that the point of this post was how ridiculous it is that things like Viagra can be covered by insurance, but not birth control (this discussion stated on another thread - the link is in the post).
abstinance is free you horny kids!
First of all, the original post said that the condom does not provide enough protection. From research I've done, I have found that the condom has an average 97% effectiveness for preventing pregnancy if it is used properly, and the pill has 99%. That's really not that huge of a difference, and also keep in mind that condoms protect against some STDs while the pill does not.
As for the discussion on condom costs...$150 per year is an insane amount of condoms. The ones my boyfriend and I (we split the cost, like it should be done) buy cost roughly $6 for a twelve pack. If you buy $150 worth of condoms, you'll have 25 packages of twelve, or three hundred condoms. According to statistics I found on the Kinsey Institute website, 18-29 year olds have sex the most frequently, at 112 times per year. Ten packages of 12 condoms will provide a person with 120 condoms, enough to supply the average 18-29 year old for one year of sexual intercourse. This will only cost $60 per year or $5 per month, and if the cost is split between the male and female, it is not unreasonable. $2.50 per month? Not all that impossible to achieve. Order water when you go to Mcdonald's or other restaurants and you'll save more than $2.50 per month.
As for STI protection, if you're having sex with a new person or new people on a regular basis - by all means, use a condom. You don't know where that person's been, if they're lying about an infection or if they're a carrier for something and don't know it.
I've had the same partner for 18 months now so I'm not as concerned with STIs as if I were sleeping with someone else, so that frees us up to go sans-condom if we like (although I'm still pretty squeamish to let those baby-making sperm free inside me, on the pill or not).
While both condoms and the pill have a high prevention rate, it's not 100%. Abstinence is the only form that has 100%, but let's face it - I like having sex. I feel more comfortable using two forms of protection, in case the condom breaks, in case I miss a day of the pill, whatever.
The Kinsey Institute probably has pretty accurate numbers, but the original poster didn't specify how often she uses condoms or in what situations. So while working with averages is good, making assumptions on an individual's sex life can be unfounded.
I've realized that this is a pretty hetero-normative discussion (although since the focus is birth control costs and not STI prevention, it's started out from that point).
I just want to say that this is a safe space and that all discussion is encouraged on all forms of safe sex. Bring on the dental dams, I say.
I don't understand why more people don't split the cost of birth control, as a couple previous posters have mentioned. You complain about having to pay for it, but if you're in an ongoing sexual relationship with a guy and he's a good guy, I think he would be understanding of the costs and would be willing to split it with you. If he flat out refuses to pay anything for birth control, maybe you shouldn't be having sex with him. If he's not willing to pay for birth control, he's probably not going to be willing to stick around or help pay for things if you get pregnant, should the birth control fail.
We (somewhat) split birth control costs. We try to get free condoms as much as possible and if we have to buy them, he does.
As for him contributing to my prescription costs, I'm sure he would if I asked him to. The thing is, I had my prescription before he came around and I'll have it after he leaves (if he does). While $30/month is something I complain about, it's not something that I can't (usually) handle. If things got tight, he'd probably help me cover it.
Usually though, if I've just picked up a 3 month supply, effectively wiping me out of $90, he'll pay for dinner or whatever until I've been paid again.
I'm lucky enough to be in a stable relationship where I wouldn't feel weird asking my boyfriend to cover birth control costs. Some other people might not be as lucky.
The main point isn't that birth control costs should be evenly split - however individuals want to do that is fine. The point is that it should be cheaper and more accessible in general.
This is going to cause some hateful comments towards me, I'm sure, but I'm used to it.
Isn't the purpose of sex to procreate? If you don't want to have a baby, you ideally should not be having sex. If you're going to go against what sex is meant to be, and you have it for fun, shouldn't you be responsible for costs associated with it? If you want to go see a movie, you pay the ticket price and you don't complain, because you're getting something in return. If you want to have sex, you pay the prescription or condom cost, and you shouldn't complain, because you're getting something in return.
What sex is meant to be obviously depends on an individual's own interpretation. Let me just toss in an example of an infertile couple, or one who simply don't want children--sex isn't meant for procreation in either of those cases. That's neither here nor there. If, as you suggest, there's a price to breaking arbitrary standards of morality--why doesn't it cost the man as much as it does the woman? Condoms are 1/5 the cost of my birth control pills and somehow this is fair and equitable? I suppose if one ascribes to the belief that women should serve as the gatekeepers to sexual activity, it makes sense to punish them financially for breaking this pact. However, birth control is also used to regular menstrual periods and other ailments--so it doesn't seem fair to paint all users with the same immoral brush. Should your birth control cost less if you're abstinent and only using it to reduce acne?
All things cost money, darling, and birth control manufacturers need to make a profit, too. It's a fact of life. Just because it's something you use and have to pay for doesn't mean that you have a right to demand for the price to be lowered. Just be happy that you have it available to you as an option.
When I was your age, oral contraception was new, more expensive, and had much worse side effects than it does now. You also had to be married in order to even get them! I know I'm really dating myself with all this, but I think it will give you a better perspective on what you're complaining about.
Imagine not having the pill be available to you at all. Sure, you would have a few more dollars in your pocket each month, but you also might have a couple of kids to take care of.
I'm very grateful that prescription pills are much more accessible than they used to be and the estrogen dosages are much lower than they used to be.
However, I think that it's my right to voice an opinion on anything I want, and I think that birth control should be more reasonably priced, especially since pill costs have skyrocketed since the Deficit Reduction bill passed in 2005. We're talking an increase from $5/15/20 to $30/40/50.
I recognize the right of companies to make profits, but then again, these are the same companies that are putting huge patent restrictions on HIV drugs so generic companies can't make knock-off, cheaper versions to distribute in Africa. Yes, HIV in Africa isn't the same as oral contraceptives in America, but my point is that these companies often overlook moral and social responsibilities in favor of making a profit.
I'm pretty sure if there's an industry that doesn't need my extra $15 bucks, it's the drug companies. Or oil companies. They don't deserve my extra money either.
Have you considered that costs could be increasing partially due to extended research on the drugs in order to make them safer and more effective, to better benefit you?
Lindsey, what social and moral responsibility do corporations have? The sole purpose of a business is to make a profit, thats what keeps economies going. Anything else is just philanthropy and charity.
If you took a economics class one of the first concepts you would learn is price elasticity.
Sometimes I swear that liberals do not understand economics.
Tha company can charge whatever it wants, the market will correct prices if they are to high by nobody buying the product.
Imagine not having the pill be available to you at all. Sure, you would have a few more dollars in your pocket each month, but you also might have a couple of kids to take care of.
I know what you're referring to, but I don't have to imagine. The moment my term of insurance ends, this is an incredibly real likelihood. The price of birth control without insurance prices me right out of its protection without the help of my significant other. I can easily see someone single with other financial responsibilities having trouble covering the costs.
Jen argued earlier that insurance does not cover birth control but covers viagra, but Ophelia's birth control is covered by her insurance...
If you have a problem with your insurance not paying for your birth control, it appears to me that you could find one that does. Find the one that fits your needs, and if one of your needs is to have sex 5 times a week, then choose the policy that will pay for birth control. If you choose to have no sex and become depressed and boyfriendless because of it, as Jen implies will happen in her original post, then choose the policy that pays for anti depressants but not for birth control.
Another point--Jen, you express such a pressing need to spend so much money on things to make you look more beautiful--how in the WORLD do you rack up hundreds of dollars a month worth of beauty products? You need to learn to budget your money better. What's wrong with buying suave shampoo for $2 per bottle instead of the expensive brands? What's wrong with using a disposable two blade razor instead of the $20 quadruple blade name brand ones? What's wrong with the $3 pink and green tube of mascara instead of the $10 one with the fancy wand? What's wrong with decreasing food portions instead of buying expensive diet foods? Why can't you go jogging outside instead of buying an expensive treadmill? Why do you need the best of everything when the cheaper version will suffice?
Being a woman isn't as expensive as you make it seem. I'm in college,so i keep track of my spending to an extent. This whole year I've spent about $1000 out of my checking account. $500 was spent on books, and I'd estimate about $200 was spent on entertainment and gas for my car. That leaves $300 that I spent on pads, tampons, acne treatments, hair products, shampoo and conditioner, lotion, bras, etc. Oh yeah, and I have bought condoms, too! If I can spend $300 in nine months on these things which you claim to have to spend hundreds of dollars monthly on, I'm sure it's possible for you to get your costs down to a much more reasonable level.
And no, I don't look like a Neanderthal.
Julie, I don't know about you, but as someone who depends on insurance on a monthly basis to cover medical expenses, it is not always so easy as "just get another one." What if my insurance helped cover my rather expensive medical costs, but skimped on the birth control? Maybe you are lucky and don't have to deal with this.
Just pointing that out.
Maybe you should think about what's more important, then. If you need the insurance to cover medical costs, then suck it up and don't complain that it doesn't cover birth control. Make sacrifices so you can afford it. I realize that $300 per year is kind of expensive if your budget is tight, but there is almost always room for improvement in a budget, as I explained about beauty and hygiene products. Dollar stores are cheap, if your budget is tight, shop at them. You could quit buying soda and just drink tap water. Buy bras at Walmart instead of Victoria's Secret.
"If you have a problem with your insurance not paying for your birth control, it appears to me that you could find one that does."
That's a nice plan, if you don't have preexisting medical conditions that prevent you from obtaining new insurance. Or, if your insurance isn't provided by your job. My insurance comes from my father's job. There's no way they'd change their insurance if my meds stopped being covered because my younger sister needs the coverage for her much more expensive medical procedures and medications. It's not always possible to pick up and change your insurance to the one that's most convenient.
The problem with your argument, Julie, is that you assume that all women who find the price of birth control to be problematic, spend their money on frivolous pleasures. Is that true of some people? Yes. But for me personally, it does not. I hardly spend any money at all, but if I was not in school and had bills to pay and a disease that I needed to treat, I would still be slightly strapped for money.
Does that mean that I should never be allowed to have sex if I don't want to? Why should I be forced to make a decision like that? Why does it always seem like women have to change to accommodate what I see as being unjustness in society?
Correction: Does that mean that I should never be allowed to have sex even if I want to?
Things brings us back to an argument stated previously by a couple people...get your boyfriend to help you out with birth control expenses.
And you're right, Ophelia. If your parents insurance is through their job, they shouldn't change it to better suit your birth control needs. But then again, your parents shouldn't be responsible for your sex life.
Also, if you can't afford the pill, you can still use condoms...I know many of you don't prefer it, but if you can't afford the pill, you should be willing to settle for 3% less effectiveness if it means the difference of paying your electricity bill or getting your birth control pills.
But honestly, if the pill costs $300 per year and you split the cost with your boyfriend, that's only $12.50 a month. I think you are really exaggerating the impact the cost of birth control will have on people.
Actually mine would cost $600 a year which is less doable for a single person. Again, I'll have to mention that I was prescribed birth control pills for my periods, and I was taking them for years before I ever became sexually active. That I am sexually active doesn't negate the role they have in the maintenance of my health. The arguments I've seen appear to be focused on the moral aspect of sexual intercourse and presumes that there's a partner who should share the cost. Well if my partner were to exit the picture, should the cost of my birth control go down too? (It'd be nice).
Additionally, I see condoms being proposed as equal to hormonal birth control methods, but there are plenty of reasons why they aren't. Typical use renders condoms 85% effective, whereas typical use for hormonal birth control is 95% (typical use falling below perfect use and above complete failure of use).
From VaginaPagina:
# Condoms may tear or rip which can render them ineffective.
# Latex condoms can NOT be used with oil-based lubrication, as it may deteriorate the condom.
# Some people may have allergies or sensitivities to latex which can cause dryness, redness, itching, and infection in the genital region.
# Some couples may find condoms decrease sensitivity during sex.
# Many latex condoms are not suitable for vegans as they can be produced with casein (the most common milk protein) and/or can be tested on animals. Glyde is one brand that produces a vegan latex condom.
Lindsey, what social and moral responsibility do corporations have? The sole purpose of a business is to make a profit, thats what keeps economies going. Anything else is just philanthropy and charity.
They have every social and moral responsibility that individual people do. Just because they're hiding behind a logo doesn't mean corporations are excused from being an active, positive part of our world. I recognize the right to make profits, but when you're making profits by jacking up the prices of something that keeps women from having unwanted pregnancies and abortions, it's not responsible to society.
But honestly, if the pill costs $300 per year and you split the cost with your boyfriend, that's only $12.50 a month. I think you are really exaggerating the impact the cost of birth control will have on people.
You're assuming everyone is lucky enough to have a partner that will share in costs.
The point Goose was making was that the cost of birth control is as high as it is because the people have been willing to pay that cost. If more people really couldn't afford it, they wouldn't buy it, and prices would be reduced in order to get more people to buy it. Birth control manufacturers have no reason to believe that they're pricing it too high, because sales are good. Take an economics class before you start speculating about the reasoning for prices being what they are.
And even $25 per month if not split with a significant other is not that much money. If you're so poor that you can't afford that, maybe you should spend more time trying to find a better job than complaining about birth control costs.
And why don't you consider the fact that birth control is not the only expensive prescription? In fact, compared to many other vital prescriptions, it is much cheaper. Anti depressants, heart medication, arthritis medication...those are all much more expensive than birth control. Why don't you complain about the costs of those? Oh, because it doesn't affect you? Stop being so self-centered. More people are affected by the high costs of these other medicines than are affected by the high costs of birth control. Just because you are feminists looking out for the good of women doesn't mean you should ignore the problems that other groups of people have. You wonder why so many people are annoyed by feminists such as yourself? It's because you want special treatment instead of equal treatment. We women deserve equal treatment. We have no right to demand special treatment such as the reduction in price of birth control.
They have every social and moral responsibility that individual people do. Just because they're hiding behind a logo doesn't mean corporations are excused from being an active, positive part of our world.
And where does this moral and social responsibility come from? This is a serious question, If we, as a society have become irreligious, that can't be the source. I am going to say that the only thing I am bound to do in America is follow the law of the land, and that law says absolutely nothing about the level of profit you are allowed to make, or if you have to give anything away.
Anti depressants, heart medication, arthritis medication...those are all much more expensive than birth control. Why don't you complain about the costs of those? Oh, because it doesn't affect you? Stop being so self-centered. More people are affected by the high costs of these other medicines than are affected by the high costs of birth control. Just because you are feminists looking out for the good of women doesn't mean you should ignore the problems that other groups of people have.
Hello, Frustrated, my name is Amelia. I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes 7 years ago, and I am a feminist who thinks that the price of birth control should be kept low.
My medical costs, even with insurance, can costs hundreds of dollars every month, and will cost that much for the rest of my life. I think that's wrong. I need these medications to live, but right now I am under my stepfather's insurance, and it is costing a lot of money.
As someone who has to deal with expense, necessary medical costs, I still feel that the price of birth control should be kept low because there are people like me who would say that taking care of their disease and sex are parts of their lives. So why should we ignore the costs of something that many people consider a part of their life?
And how do you come off saying that any of us are advocating for special treatment? Low birth control costs would help women, but they would also help men. They would also help the poor, and other racial/ethnic minorities who are often discriminated against and do not have the same job opportunities as white people.
How is that asking for special treatment?
The point Goose was making was that the cost of birth control is as high as it is because the people have been willing to pay that cost. If more people really couldn't afford it, they wouldn't buy it, and prices would be reduced in order to get more people to buy it. Birth control manufacturers have no reason to believe that they're pricing it too high, because sales are good. Take an economics class before you start speculating about the reasoning for prices being what they are.
You've just listed a bunch of other meds that are also expensive, but their prices never go down. There are plenty of elderly people who have to decide between food and meds, and the prices don't go down. When the companies manufacture items that are necessary for the maintenance of health and the prevention of disease, why would it follow market forces? I've seen even heartburn medication get so expensive that my insurance won't cover it--but does the price go down? No, it doesn't. Someone, somewhere has to buy it, and the companies know this. It's not a choice of not buying it and waiting them out, they're necessities and someone has to--at least until they come out with the generic (and I've seen them block that too).
And why don't you consider the fact that birth control is not the only expensive prescription?
BECAUSE THIS IS A POST ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL. That's why I'm concerned about the price of birth control. Amelia makes lots of very good points about other medications and diseases in relation to birth control. She covered so many good reasons why medication costs should be reasonable for everyone - even people who use birth control.
And where does this moral and social responsibility come from? This is a serious question, If we, as a society have become irreligious, that can't be the source. I am going to say that the only thing I am bound to do in America is follow the law of the land, and that law says absolutely nothing about the level of profit you are allowed to make, or if you have to give anything away.
I wouldn't say society is irreligious - if anything, the public sphere has become increasingly religious in the past twenty years from the Religious Right injecting their idea of religion into public discourse in an attempt to regulate society based on their morals.
Moral and social responsibility comes from the fact that we are a community - the communities we make up locally, nationally, globally. I don't know if you know this, but we are in life together. How about the Golden rule? Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't subscribe to judeo-christian belief? How about Kant's categorical imperative - "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
We are people in a world, and hiding your lack of respect for humanity behind the giant face of a corporation is shameful.
Thank you so much for linking to my blog. This is obviously a huge issue for women, yet it doesn't seem to be talked about much.
Thanks so much for the link! I started to respond to each of the comments, but... I gave up after a couple!
But here's a couple notes to defend myself:
I do not currently charge my bf because he is a student and makes far less than I do
I'm simply not comfortable with condoms only. 97% is "perfect use" (which i think includes spermicide?), what is the stat for actual use?
Free clinics/planned parenthood: I probably make too much to be eligible. I'm not poor, i just think the expense is unjustifiably high.
Post a Comment