Bobby Jindal: Let’s Make Birth Control An Over The Counter Drug

28jindal.600

Democrats played birth control politics in the last election cycle to great degree of success. They successfully convinced a large chunk of the electorate that Republicans are fighting a “war on women” because they a) don’t think birth control should be an entitlement and b) people who have a moral objection to birth control shouldn’t be forced to pay for it.

This, of course, was nonsense but the Democrats made it an emotional argument, not a reasoned and logical argument, and in the end the emotional argument got more traction (as it often does with the masses).

But Bobby Jindal has a way to cut through the nonsense. Why not make birth control cheaper, easier to get and a personal choice by allowing it to be sold over the counter?

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.

Let’s ask the question: Why do women have to go see a doctor before they buy birth control? There are two answers. First, because big government says they should, even though requiring a doctor visit to get a drug that research shows is safe helps drive up health-care costs. Second, because big pharmaceutical companies benefit from it. They know that prices would be driven down if the companies had to compete in the marketplace once their contraceptives were sold over the counter.

So at present we have an odd situation. Thanks to President Obama and the pro-choice lobby, women can buy the morning-after pill over the counter without a prescription, but women cannot buy oral contraceptives over the counter unless they have a prescription. 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.

Makes sense to me. I’m pro-life (because the science is clear on when life begins), but I don’t see the problem with using condoms or medication to ensure that sex doesn’t result in a life being created. I’m also pro-markets, which means that I support knocking down barriers between willing sellers and willing buyers.

If a woman, or anyone else, wants to buy conception why not allow them to participate in a free, competitive market with as little red tape as possible?

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • SigFan

    Excellent idea – and with the new rules governing the use of Flex Spending you cannot pay for it with that unless you have a prescription. And I don’t believe insurance will generally cover OTC meds – even with a prescription. Sounds like a winning idea from all angles.

  • Neiman

    He just lost the evangelical vote and thus the GOP nomination.

    • Bat One

      Would that be the same evangelicals who refused to vote for Mr. Romney last month and thus helped re-elect Barack Hussein Obama?

      • Neiman

        Yes! Or, would you ask them to violate their Christian conscience for political expediency? It seems to me that when a man votes/acts according to his private moral/spiritual conscience, it is contrary to that conscience to count the costs.

        • Bat One

          I would never suggest that someone violates his Christian conscience. At least not those who actually have one. But it is also true that many of us who are no less Christian did not see Mr. Romney’s faith as a reason to disqualify him from the presidency.

          As for “counting the costs” we will have to agree to disagree – again. If one is to act according to conscience, then surely that fealty should dictate that he acknowledge the results of his conscience-driven actions… or in this case, inaction.

          • Neiman

            Acknowledge the results, yes I agree. The result of not voting for a man many of us believed served a false, pagan god (Romney) and one (Obama) that appears to have no faith at all, had to cause one to be elected and another to lose by default; but, in this case, it was according to my conscience knowingly voting for evil in either case and that I could not do.

            I told many here that it was not a matter of one’s salvation or saying one that did vote is not a Christian, each having to be convinced in his own heart about what is truth. Yet, I had an obligation, I believe, to state how I would vote and why, should it help someone else resolve their own conflicts about the matter.

            To make the matter clear by an extreme example: What if I had to vote for either Stalin or Hitler or not vote at all? While I’ll not cast either man in either part, that is what it meant to me, either man was unacceptable to me spiritually and I could not vote for either, leaving the outcome in God’s hands.

          • Bat One

            As long as you understand that having helped reelect the Obama regime, the greater of the two “evils” you spoke of, you are hardly likely to have your criticisms taken very seriously from here on. Those who choose not to fight a battle are in no position to criticize the actions, or the outcome, of those who do.

          • Neiman

            When a man is unwilling to stand by His Christian values, no matter the outcome, he should seriously question his Christian faith. Is Jesus their all-in-all, preeminent in all things, the first to last in his life, the beginning and end of all things, the Alpha and Omega; or are they more interested in the comforts of this life and their nationality, or are they wholly dedicated to the Lord in everything? It is not for me to decide for another man, but I have the right, even the obligation to pose the questions I think they should ask of themselves.

            Not fight in the battle between a Marxist/Atheist (Obama) or a idol worshipping member of a non-Christian cult? I must ask myself which side would Jesus take, where would He stand in this battle? Might I suggest as His Kingdom and mine are not of this world, He would leave that battle to the people of this fallen world. Yet, leaving that battle to those of this world, am I then disallowed from expressing my opinions on the affairs of this world? Okay, I have made a choice, to stand with Christ as best I can by His power and you are free to blame me for his election, but when it became a choice between two evils, forgive me for saying no to both.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I would count losing voters like you as a benefit.

      • Neiman

        Okay, let’s see how the GOP does without evangelicals, maybe you like permanent minority status and never getting the White House again; or, maybe your amoral side will have to find a way to make peace and here is a hint, throwing up liberal candidates without family/moral values won’t do it.

    • Flyby_Knight

      Why? Do evangelicals really hate birth control that much? I have never understood this about the evangelical community. What’s wrong with a woman taking a pill to avoid having children before she is ready and willing to be responsible for them for their entire lives?

      • Neiman

        Because we believe fornication is immoral and destructive of a people/society, because that woman should not be engaging in sexual intercourse outside the marriage bed, and when we agree it is okay, we undermine any sense of morality and curse our nation.

        • Flyby_Knight

          If God didn’t want us having sex, why did he make it so enjoyable?

          • Neiman

            You can enjoy it and have as much as you want on the marriage bed, with your lawful spouse.

          • Flyby_Knight

            And if that spouse and I don’t want to have children at the moment, should we be able to buy birth control over the counter?

          • Neiman

            If you are not a Christian, do what you will. It has nothing to do with you.

            A Christian may and many do buy birth control, but it is not God’s best plan for their lives, they are selling God and themselves short. It will not cause them to lose their Salvation, but it does hinder their communion with Him and that is a great loss.

          • Flyby_Knight

            That’s just the thing, though. Those who aren’t Christian can’t “do what you will” when the Christians want to use their beliefs as the basis for legislation that applies to everyone.

          • Neiman

            Wrong again and it is a habit with you.

            They do not want to pay for your contraceptives, if you want to engage in fornication outside marriage and the Church, pay for your own contraceptives.

          • Flyby_Knight

            I’m not asking anyone to buy contraceptives for me. I’d like to be able to buy them myself without a prescription.

          • Neiman

            Isn’t that a medical question? Oh, I forgot to the Left (American Soviet) everything is political.

          • Flyby_Knight

            You just said that Jindal would lose the evangelical vote for proposing exactly that. Sounds like you made it political.

            Try again, Comrade.

          • Neiman

            Comrade? Yeah that is what you liberals call each other, right. Well I am not your comrade.

            It is not political with the GOP abandoning evangelical values, it is the latter just saying no to voting for amoral people on either side of the aisle.

  • Jitter

    If science showed that frequently the pill works by means of preventing implantation in the uteros of the same-sized human being that science says is uniquely its own creature, would that still fly in your book to allow the pill’s use at all?

    • Neiman

      If a pill prevented the AIDS virus from being spread, would that make homosexual sodomy morally acceptable to evangelicals?

      Yes, many heterosexuals engage in sodomy too, but I said homosexuals because the spread of AIDS is mostly associated with that community.

  • Snarkie

    Jindal is gonna need a few more gimmicks.

  • igx

    FWIW, I think when conservatives say that the Plan B pill is an abortifacient they aren’t helping the cause. It isn’t .

    • Jitter

      What is it then?

      • igx

        I am not some great big expert on this, to be clear. 99.9% the woman isn’t fertilized until 24 to 72 hours later. The plan B pill stops contraception during that window.

        JMO, the Right always ends up with an advantage when we discuss things they way they actually are, which these days, is easier said than done.

  • spud

    Republicans are going to need alot more gimmicks than this to beat Mrs. Clinton. I once thought she would not run but now I am more positive than ever she will.

  • WOOF

    Reason women won’t vote for Jindal .
    Birth control is covered by insurance in 2013/14.
    Booby wants them to pay for it over the counter.
    Next woman hating jerk please announce for 2016.

Top