Will GOPs Back Bobby Jindal’s Push to Put the Pill Over the Counter?

At American pharmacies, a woman can get the controversial morning-after pill without a prescription but not the basic daily pill for issues ranging from birth control to painful periods.

One conservative Republican says it’s time to put contraception over the counter, in accordance with recent guidance from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, eliminating the mandate that has angered religious employers and taking the wind out of the Democrats’ sails on “birth-control politics.”

As a Roman Catholic, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal understands why groups have filed suit against the Obama administration’s mandate to provide birth control without co-payment.

“As a conservative Republican, I believe that we have been stupid to let the Democrats demagogue the contraceptives issue and pretend, during debates about health-care insurance, that Republicans are somehow against birth control. It’s a disingenuous political argument they make,” Jindal wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal.

“As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it. But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn’t be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule,” he added.

Jindal contends that continuing the status quo would needlessly add to healthcare costs while lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies.

“Contraception is a personal matter — the government shouldn’t be in the business of banning it or requiring a woman’s employer to keep tabs on her use of it. If an insurance company or those purchasing insurance want to cover birth control, they should be free to do so. If a consumer wants to buy birth control on her own, she should be free to do so,” he wrote.

But will the GOP sign on to this plan to defuse a combustible Dem talking point (see most of the 2012 DNC)?

It’s difficult to tell right now. Jindal’s op-ed was published mere hours before the Newtown, Conn., school shooting seized the headlines — and the attention of every lawmaker on Capitol Hill, turning the lame-duck narrative toward a gun control debate.

Liberals are split on Jindal’s call, simultaneously praising him for an enlightened viewpoint and accusing him of pandering to independent and Democratic voters while not-so-secretly wanting to torpedo the controversial ObamaCare mandate.

“Jindal understands that, like it or not, Democrats were quite successful at demagoguing Republicans this year over their opposition to the contraception mandate. And yet, the Republican base is still dead set against the idea that ‘religious institutions’ should be required to pay for contraceptives for their employees. How to square this circle?” wrote Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. “Easy: if contraceptives are sold over the counter, then the issue disappears.”

Putting the pill over the counter gives contraception advocates the universal access they wanted – more women would use it without a doctor’s visit being required. But some argue that access will be restricted if there’s any out-of-pocket expense – even if going over the counter knocks the price down as expected and is comparable to buying a box of Pepcid or Claritin. They also contend that other, more expensive contraceptives such as IUDs should still be covered through a government mandate, and that kids under 18 should have access to the pill, too. See Sandra Fluke for this train of thought.

“The idea here is that, oh, OK, now we have to pay for it again? To me that sounds like thanks but no thanks. We won the election, thanks,” Christina Page, author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, told the Daily Beast in reaction to Jindal’s op-ed.

One can’t imagine that opposing OTC contraceptives would look good to voters in either party who want convenience and savings and would cheer at the idea of not having to go through a doctor to get a pill they may have been using for years.

Not to say that opposition won’t come from Jindal’s side, though, in the form of social conservatives who just wouldn’t want wider access to birth control.

“Pro-lifers tend to believe that contraception is the root cause of many societal evils; divorce, rampant misuse of sexuality, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion,” Austin Ruse wrote at First Things. “…Perhaps, though, the toothpaste will never get back in that tube.”

“Democrats have wrongly accused Republicans of being against birth control and against allowing people to use it. That’s hogwash,” Jindal wrote. “But Republicans do want to protect those who have religious beliefs that are opposed to contraception.”

Still, Jindal got chided by the church even though he made his personal views clear. “The Archdiocese of New Orleans disagrees with Governor Jindal’s stance on this issue, as the use of birth control and contraceptives are against Catholic Church teaching,” Sarah Comiskey McDonald, communications director for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, told EWTN News Dec. 14.

Jindal could open a new conversation in Washington, though, as there hasn’t been legislative attention to this sort of unfettered contraceptive access this Congress.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced the Religious Freedom Protection Act of 2012 — which has been stuck in committee since February — to address the key concern with Obama’s mandate. Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) introduced a bill that would expand contraception education in an effort to prevent teen pregnancy. Nothing’s come close to what Jindal proposes.

“Access and cost issues are common reasons why women either do not use contraception or have gaps in use. A potential way to improve contraceptive access and use, and possibly decrease unintended pregnancy rates, is to allow over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives (OCs),” the obstetricians and gynecologists’ group wrote in their committee opinion. “…Weighing the risks versus the benefits based on currently available data, OCs should be available over-the-counter. Women should self-screen for most contraindications to OCs using checklists.”

Women who take the pill would find such checklists very familiar: smoking increases risks, shouldn’t be taken with a history of blood clots, taking antibiotics decreases efficacy, etc.

Considering his experience as the head of Louisiana’s Department of Health and Hospitals (at age 24) and as an assistant secretary of Health and Human Services in the George W. Bush administration, Jindal has the credentials to back up his proposal.

“What the president, president’s campaign did was focus on certain members of his base coalition, give them extraordinary financial gifts from the government, and then work very aggressively to turn them out to vote,” Romney said in a mea culpa call with top donors shortly after his loss.

The new chairman of the Republican Governors Association, at a press conference at the group’s meeting in Las Vegas, lashed out at the comments as “absolutely wrong.”

“One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote,” Jindal said.

And though his birth control message may be viewed cynically as simply an attempt to woo women voters, Jindal’s proposal serves a greater purpose of letting the GOP launch a key offensive on the Democrats’ “war on women” narrative while putting at ease those who object to having to pay for employees’ birth control.

Bridget Johnson is a career journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News. She has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media

Those who oppose birth control of all kinds can mind their own business.

And those who support birth control can mind their own business by NOT dragging everyone else into it and expecting them to pay for it or be held financially responsible for any clean up afterwards. That way, both sides are free to do as they please.
Getting funding out of the issue will solve the conscience problem. When funding is absent, those who want it can just buy it. Everyone is free to follow their own belief.

I believe you are correct that Jindal’s “triangulation” is to remove the issue from the table, in order to take it away from Democrats.

I stll say, it is wrong. Republicans will never get the vote of “womyn” for which this is an issue. They wil lose the vote of many Conservatives who dislike sexualizing their children at an ever-increasing rate. It also admits the “government belongs in healthcare” argument, by injecting even more government.

How do you do this, anyway? I don’t believe that BC is by perscription, now, because of any laws, is it? It is for medical reasons, isn’t it? How do you “legislate” this? That sounds like something Democrats would do.

Beyond all of this, there is still a moral issue, that I believe is faulty to ignore. BC is not a “medicine”. It is not curing or treating an illness. Almost its only reason for existance is to enable recreational sex. I don’t know why Consevatives drop this issue. I don’t want to pay for Sandra Fluke’s recreational sex fund any more than I want to pay for her kegger-fund that’s needed to get a guy to want to lay her in the first place.

Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.

(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)

Politically, this is genius for conservatives. Glad someone thought of it.

Moral issues are not the under the sole conservatership of the Catholic Church. The media quotes them more often because they can easily identify the leader. Moral conservatives use birth control.

Seeing it available over the counter is an excellent idea whose time has come. Many other drugs have made the leap from prescription to counter. It makes too much sense for it to be a huge issue.

Go Bobby Jindal.

(Medically its not so great because if the woman is already pregnant she could seriously affect any baby. Also, (some women tend to clots that could kill, as well as progestin can cause cancer. But the truth is that free clinics and most docs hand the pill out without full blood counts and ultrasounds anyway so it’s kind of moot.)

As long as NO ONE ELSE has to pay for it, be fiscally responsible for the after affects, and warnings have to be on every package. It has to be sold as a "choice" thing, just like alchohol.
We all know when the babies are born deformed and women are dieing from blood clots the democrats will not waste the crises. They'll come rushing in to "Do something" and blame it all on us.

Argh! FR, get a gosh darn programmer who will write in code not to post identical posts right after each other! Your stupid posting page freezes and there is no way to know it didnt post!!! It’s 2012 and we pay you a ton of money!! Unfair! I am sick of apologizing for “my mistake” when I didn’t do anything wrong! Just trying to post one fricking time!

How do you “legislate” this?

Just like any other drug that no longer requires a prescription. Politicians decide they want it available 'over the counter' and start passing laws and pushing the FDA to allow it to be sold without a prescription. Many drugs were once prescription only that are now available without one. Tens of millions of women have been using the pill for decades now. It's safe and there is probably no reason a prescription is required anyway.

By the way, it is already a conservative argument for many to get the government out of the drug regulation business. I would prefer it if far more drugs were available to the consumer without the need to spend a bunch of money at a doctor's office getting a prescription. If more things were available 'over the counter', an educated consumer could save a fortune. In some countries, prescriptions aren't required for most pharmaceuticals and somehow the people do just fine.

Almost its only reason for existance is to enable recreational sex. I don’t know why Consevatives drop this issue.

Umm, because conservatives like recreational sex too? Contraception really is a completely, entirely settled issue. There is only a very small percentage of conservatives that want to re-fight something that was collectively decided back in the 50's and 60's. Contraception is here to stay. Politicians like Santorum who want to preach to Americans and explain why contraception is "not okay" are part of the reason the younger generations avoid the Republican brand like the plague.

You’re right, why should it?

Why is it by perscription now? Are there medical reasons?

Why should a politician inject himself into this decision, making it “our business”? What will he do, pass a law forcing the medical profession to declare it “safe” whether it is, or is not?

The only reason we are even discussing this is because of Democrat stupidity in thinking that Government and public money belong in healthcare.

Since it’s just Sandra Fluke’s sex-entertainment fund, I don’t want to pay for it. I don’t want to pay to clean her up, afterwards, either.

So, you’re right. It’s not public business. Let’s get it out if political discussion. The Democrats were wrong to think they can force people to pay and support Government involvment with this, and Jindal’s approach is no better.

Obama should have been the one to come up with this idea, not Jindal.

Obama, if he wanted, would have been seen as making an accommodation to the Church and their mission organizations, regained some of that Catholic vote that he lost over the religious freedom issue, and the issue of birth control would be on the shelf, de-politicized.

However, the idea coming from Jindal serves, masterfully, political purposes that are not all that charitable. It is the Ends vs. Means arguement Catholics are generally trained up to recognize.

While it brilliantly does take the issue away from the sex Marxist Democrats, and it does come off as defending religious liberty, the Catholic can not broaden the use of contraceptive abortifacets in the process.

As a practicing Catholic, on this Jindal surprises as one might assume he knows better, regardless of the general opinion held by a now quite heathen, relativistic nation.

Well, your description of the way things work at the FDA would certainly make me want to do away with it as a Federal agency. I hope that there is actually SOME medicine involved.

Jindal, as a Governor, I thought we were agreed, is taking a completely political view on this. I don’t think that anything he could propose would look anything like other former-prescrpition-drugs and their transition to OTC?

I like recreational sex, too, but I don’t want to subsidize someone elses. I think most Consevatives would feel the same way, and that’s the way to beat-back Sandra Fluke and the AHCA debacle the Democrats have us in.

I suppose you are thinking of me as, you equated to Santorum, wanting to ban BC or something. That is not the case. In that sense I am in agreement with you that BC is a “settled” issue. But I think you are wrong if you think that many people want to publicly pay for it for everyone. I also think a great many parents would not like to give up what little control they have in its use.

You know, as we discussed earlier, you can both win your point and lose it, too. The use of BC is, as you say, “settled” in America. In 50 years, though, that America will no longer exist. The culture(s) that will replace it, have also “settled” the issue. They don’t use it, and that is why they will replace us.

There are natural physical consequences to ingesting birth control pills. I wonder if they warn women.

That is the only reason I would see for the pills to be available only through a doctor’s cut of the action.

Since many secular doctors beleive the worst thing that could happen to a young woman is the birth of a baby, I would guess they do not tell women about the downside to birth control and the physical, mental and public mental health (social diseases) of sexual permiscuity.

Under natural law, man has free will and also, within Western ethical medicine, doctors have the duty to be honest with man in documenting the consequences and warning their patients and the pulbic at large so they are not ignorant as they make choices in life.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.