As a 17 year old freshman in college, I became pregnant. It was not a “lifestyle choice.” It was rape. The incidence of rape is higher for female college students than that of most other populations of and though the chance of it happening to ME again is slim, I am one of the people who was benefiting from subsidized birth control. A full time student, trying to pay my OWN way through school with a part time job, I don’t have the money to even have that few beers you suggest that I give up. Not to mention the price of my prescription has risen from 12 dollars to 48.50. Thats a BIG difference to compensate for, I have to decide whether a bus pass to get to school, or birth control is higher priority. Giving up either one would leave me just as vulnerable as I was 4 years ago

Beckah, not a lifestyle choice, at 9:00 pm EDT on September 6, 2007

Let’s be honest...

Health education that promotes anything other than abstinence are not high priorities on the present administration’s agenda. It is extremely kind to claim that this was “not intended to affect college students.”

S. G., at 8:56 am EDT on March 22, 2007

Sounds to me when “Hoban said the pricing shift has also made it impossible for campus health centers to — as they have in the past — add a little to the costs of birth control, using the extra funds to provide other services on campus related to family planning and sexual health” that the a matter of contention is the loss of that expected ‘income’ to health centers. It’s about money then, right? It boils down to the paradox between a removal of a subsidy and the reinstatement of income to pharmaceutical companies.

EB, at 10:36 am EDT on March 22, 2007

That college age women are concerned with their own well-being — their health, their “lifestyle", and their finances — does not preclude them from also being concerned with poverty in the world around them. How incredibly insulting to imply that women who are concerned with the cost of birth control are shallow and lack perspective. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of women in college for whom money is a perpetual struggle in very serious ways — women who will graduate a hundred thousand dollars in debt, but hopefully with the ability to change their financial situation.

The legislation enacted doesn’t take money away from BC programs to give it to people who can’t afford their heart medicine, so what’s the connection?

Amanda, at 11:21 am EDT on March 22, 2007

My point is it seems that colleges are saying that students are entitled to cheap birth control. In the real world, very few are entitled to cheap prescriptions. I have insurance but I pay $130 a month for my prescription. I’m not whining about it or saying the government should subsidize it, I pay it like millions of Americans do each day. I’m not saying it’s right to raise the price on the pill, but what I am saying is a little perspective is needed. When these students graduate, good luck finding $10 perscriptions.

TA, at 11:36 am EDT on March 22, 2007

“Before the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, pharmaceutical companies were selling medication, including birth control, at nominal prices to various health institutions, including campus health clinics.”

As I understand it, this does not only affect the cost of birth control. The students may be most upset by the cost of birth control. But if a student has a cold or some other common ailments, that unexpected/unplanned for cost is also increased. As a student, the campus health center was typically the least expensive option in town for most scripts...and they would tell you if they were not. The issue is beyond just birth control. Some students may be missing extra classes and study time because they are unable to afford the medication for their cold symptoms.

CF, at 12:06 pm EDT on March 22, 2007

First, to clear up a logical fallacy: Increasing the cost of birth control pills does not necessarily decrease access to birth control, although it may decrease access to that birth control method. It does nothing to alter the costs of other forms of birth control such as condoms, diaphragms, or IUD’s, which are just as likely to see increased usage as a result.

Second, I’ll accept for a moment that some students cannot afford the extra $20-$30 per month (although I agree that for many students it will simply mean spending less dollars on other forms of “entertainment” instead). Can those students accept the economic consequences of pregnancy if their birth control method fails, either to afford to carry a pregnancy to term or to afford an abortion? Can they afford the medical costs associated with contracting STD’s? Women who cannot afford birth control are unlikely to be able to afford other consequences of sexual activity, and should consider that when making their lifestyle choices.

There is no special “right to have sex” for college students, and the idea that they should be allowed to pay less than market value for birth control simply because of their student status is ludicrous. Why not legislate that all women between the ages of, say, 18 and 60 have the right to a reasonable birth control prescription cost instead? Or work toward more sensible legislation for prescriptions in general?

grad03, at 2:05 pm EDT on March 22, 2007

I am shocked at the comments from those who claim that being on birth control is a “lifestyle choice” and that college students can simply reallocate funds from their partying and eating out portions of their budget to pay for this.

I, like probably far more than women than you realize, take the pill primarily for health reasons. I began taking the pill at age 17 because of health reasons, not to prevent pregnancy. Back then I was on my mother’s insurance and we had to have our doctor write the insurance company numerous letters explaining the reasons why I needed the pill before they would even pay for the BCP. They, as some on here, forget that BCP are used for many medical reasons, not just pregnancy prevention. And I don’t think that I am in some small minority in needing the pills for this reason.

Also, I’m not sure what kind of stereotype/misconception you have of college students (Partying every night? Rich daddies who pay for everything?) but let me assure you that many college students live below the poverty line on a very fixed budget. To simply say to them, “Oh no big deal, just pay this much more a month and stop whining about it,” seems to be an ignorant statement indeed.

JS, at 2:45 pm EDT on March 22, 2007

This could get ugly...

I am also one that would fall under needing birth control for medical purposes, otherwise I find it difficult to even walk. With that being said, I think that this might become a major issue. Many students cut out on their food budgets in order to pay for other things, and I think that women may start opting to use condoms only, instead of along with the pill (if that). This is concerning and could affect the lives of many young women AND men. I think that doubling the costs will have a strong negative effect, even on those who opt not to have sexual relationships.

SA, at 9:05 pm EDT on March 22, 2007

As a graduate student who is personally affected by the change, the increase in price I experience is from $12 to $40/month. That’s a dollar a day, or a $366 dollar/year increase. As a grad student, this is just another expense that will added to my growing debt. Oh- and cutting the approximately $10-15 I spend in alcohol a month won’t compensate for that increase. While I take birth control for it’s intended purpose, I would also greatly hesistate to go off of it secondary to the additional health benefits I’ve experienced due to taking it. But I’ll survive, though I don’t appreciated being classified as a spoiled brat, entitled to sex and out of touch with the real world.

Emily, I’m affected, at 8:11 pm EDT on April 1, 2007