Disagrees with reader who wants to drop contraception mandate

To the editor:

Your reader, Beth Vordtriede, while obviously not looking at the big picture on this issue of state-mandated birth control coverage, is also uneducated on the subject.

In part, according to

— National Conference of State Legislatures — the Missouri mandate “requires health carriers that provide pharmaceutical coverage to include coverage for contraceptives, excluding drugs and devices that are intended to induce an abortion.”

It also does not mean that it is free to its policyholders. It may be subject to deductibles and co-pays, which is usually the case.

Furthermore, your reader has a rather narrow-minded opinion. She seems to think that couples who cannot afford contraception should not and will not have sex.

This is, of course, not the case, and insurance companies will end up paying more for birth-related costs in the long run rather than the cost of covering contraception.

She also states that the money from insurance companies would better be served by focusing on issues like depression, anxiety and illnesses that kill people. Well, guess what? They do. Drugs for the illnesses she mentioned are mostly covered by insurance.

There is also an implication of these mandates not focusing on senior citizens.

She commented, “I know of no documented case of any human being dying from not having sex.” Well, I know of no documented case of any senior citizen dying from not getting their Viagra prescription, which is prescribed in the millions to seniors and covered by most insurance if you are over 50.

I could go on all day. Needless to say, I do not agree with most of what your reader wrote.

Michele Patterson

Oakville