(Birth) Control-ing the Economy? *Updated*

**Update 27Jan2009/10.00: Looks like that provision might be dropped. To quote: "House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income..."

Note the choice of words for the phrases - making it sound as if low-income families are being thrown carelessly overboard like so much ballast, by being denied additional *federal* funding specifically for birth control. *sigh* (Yep, I wonder where that "skewed news" perception amid much of the public is coming from...)
---

Nancy Pelosi says birth control is cheaper, so it's okay to include that in the upcoming stimulus package.

Cheaper than what, exactly, Madame Speaker? Well, cheaper than a lot of things - big-screen TVs, for example - but what she's specifically referring to, is helping states with their health care. It's cheaper than funding abortions, in other words. Or, heaven forbid, funding births.

I was under the impression - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that birth control is already widely available and vastly affordable. Every insurance/prescription plan I've come across pays for it, since like the Speaker said, it's cheaper than most alternatives.** Barring insurance, it's available on Medicaid (or at least it's listed under RxIdaho.org, and I figure if IDAHO covers it, pretty much everywhere does).

That sounds pretty comprehensive to me, already.

And yes, it is cheap. I doubt that it makes up that big a portion of any state's healthcare budget, (hmm... research idea); and it still depends on people actually using it.

So, of all the things to call for, to receive a federal subsidy, that's a pretty odd one.

Since it seems like such an odd thing by itself, I have to wonder what the deeper objective is for this particular inclusion...

**Cheaper alternatives include a) simply not having sex, and b) educating yourself beyond the 28-day pattern "taught" in schools.