HHS Seeks Birth Control... For Deer

    These days, mentioning birth control and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in the same sentence will likely draw some strong reactions. But a recent contractor inquiry by HHS for its National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus in Bethesda, Maryland adds a new wrinkle. This time, the focus is on deer.
     The NIH site in Maryland is a 500-acre research facility, fully enclosed with a nine-foot perimeter fence and access gates. Lately, the campus has been, relatively speaking, overrun with deer; in this case, overrun means an estimated population of thirty to forty. A Youtube video taken earlier this year on the campus near the access gates illustrates the dilemma in which NIH finds itself:

    As the video shows and the documents say, "[t]he campus is densely developed with few remaining open spaces suitable as deer habitat.  The property is surrounded by high density residential and commercial development."  After mentioning that hunting has never been permitted on campus, the HHS document deadpans that "there are no non-human predators present that are capable of limiting a deer population," a fact for which NIH employees are no doubt grateful. So now that the deer population has reached "a level that is incompatible with some local land uses," NIH is seeking a solution and seems to have settled upon birth control: specifically, ovariectomies.
    Apparently thinking long-term, NIH is not looking for a contractor simply to perform the initial work, but one that can train NIH veterinary staff to perform the operations in the future:

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of Research Services (ORS), within the Office of the Director (OD) has a requirement to provide the NIH with wildlife expertise for the control of the deer population on the Bethesda Campus.  The contractor will perform ovariectomies on adult female deer, provide tagging and provide expert advice for humanely controlling the deer population.   Additionally, the contractor will provide training of NIH veterinary staff in the performance of ovariectomies in deer.

    The NIH plan includes using tranquilizer darts to catch an appropriate number of does to sufficiently regulate the size of the deer population. After the operations, the does will be monitored for infection and treated for pain as well before being released. And although hunting is still forbidden on campus, NIH is taking no chances. One of the requirements of the contract is that "[a]ll ovariectomized animals will be fitted with livestock ear tags labeled 'Do Not Consume'."

Note: A version of this post first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Planned Parenthood: ObamaCare IS Birth Control [SWA]

    Planned Parenthood (PP) has been a vocal advocate for ObamaCare.  A search of PP's website returns dozens of results, and a cursory look reveals that most, if not all, appear to be positive in nature.  The organization even features a special page entitled "What Does Obamacare Mean for Me?" 

    Although Obamacare is billed as comprehensive legislation covering every aspect of healthcare for all, the PP feature on Obamacare seems to have been designed with Sandra Fluke in mind.  In addition to the bold print for "birth control with no co-pay", there are five questions about Obamacare for which PP provides answers.  The fifth question is a very general question that has been of great concern to many ever since Obamacare was first proposed: "I Already Have Health Insurance. Does this Affect Me?"

    The answer, however, is anything but general [emphasis added]:

As part of the Affordable Care Act, health insurance plans must provide birth control with no co-pay. 

The full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods — like the pill, the ring, and the IUD — may be available to you without a co-pay or other out-of-pocket expenses. The benefit begins at different times for different health care plans. Check with your health insurance company to find out if your plan covers this new benefit. 

The best way to find out whether your plan is covering birth control without a co-pay is to call your insurance company. Check out these tips for talking with your insurance company about covering birth control.

     None of this "can I keep my plan?" or "can I keep my doctor?" nonsense.  "Am I going to get free birth control?" is the burning question.  Apparently Planned Parenthood knows its clientele and just cuts to the chase.  No doubt the secret to its success.

White House: Nothing Says Happy Mother's Day Like Free Birth Control

    As part of the White House campaign to push the Affordable Care Act by linking it with Mother's Day, the White House tweeted this today:

Thanks to the #ACA, 1 in 3 women under 65 gained access to preventive care—like birth control—with no out-of-pocket costs. #HappyMothersDay
— The White House (@whitehouse) May 10, 2013

    And kids, you don't even have to wrap it.

Let's Do the Math

    About that previous post on the Obama campaign's figures on the cost of birth control:  Let's do the math.  The Obama campaign manages to leave the impression that the cost of a woman's contraceptives over her lifetime can be $18,000.  The accountant in me is all over this.  According to the Guttmacher Institute (formerly connected to Planned Parenthood,) "[t]here are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years."  Since the Obama campaign chose to phrase it this way, how much money could all these women "save" over the next thirty years? Well, 62,000,000 times $18,000 is a little over $1.1 trillion, or about $37 billion a year!  Whew.  I'm glad no one has to pay for that!

Obama Campaign eCard: $18,000 for Birth Control!

    Both Daniel Halper of the Weekly Standard and Ed Morrissey at HotAir drew attention today to the new eCards offered by the Obama campaign.  One card in particular caught the eye of both:

    Morrissey was almost struck speechless, only managing a "I think my head may have just exploded."  Daniel Halper on the other hand gamely offered a rebuttal:

It would seem the point of the eCard is to get daughters to encourage their mothers to vote for Obama. (Would any daughter really send this card to her mother?)
And as John McCormack reported after the Sandra Fluke controversy earlier this year, the numbers don't add up. "Birth control pills can be purchased for as low as $9 per month at a pharmacy near Georgetown's campus."

    So where did the cranium-combusting $18,000 figure come from?  Would it shock you to learn that the source is Planned Parenthood?  I didn't think it would.  A visit to the Women's Health and Contraception portion of the Obama campaign website presents viewers with a graphic entitled "Contraception Facts."  There we find "Saving Women Money:  $18,000 - Amount some women could save over a lifetime on birth control."  The footnote says "Planned Parenthood, accessed 2/3/12." A search of the PP website turned up a Press Release dated 2/3/12 entitled Planned Parenthood Applauds HHS for Ensuring Access to Affordable Birth Control, which contains the following passage:

"Birth control is not just basic health care for women, it is an economic concern," said Kim Custer, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Northeast and Mid-Penn. "This common sense decision means that millions of women, who would otherwise pay $15 to $50 a month, will have access to affordable birth control, helping them save hundreds of dollars each year."

    As the cool people on Twitter say, do you see what they did there?  They took the high-end figure for "some women" of $50/month, annualized it ($600/year), and calculated it over a woman's child-bearing years.  Since $18,000 at $600/year comes out to 30 years, the only question is at what age does Planned Parenthood and the Obama campaign expect women (read "girls") to start taking birth control?  But that's an issue for another post.

    By the way, remember the Obama website graphic on Contraception Facts that I mentioned above?  Here it is below on the left.  And on the right?  A graphic from the Planned Parenthood of Nassau County Spring 2012 newsletter?

    So, what do you think?  A little collusion between the Obama campaign and Planned Parenthood?  Nah.  It's probably just a fluke.

Crazy As It Sounds

    Here's an exercise for you.  Compare the factual bases of these two statements:

Statement #1 - "It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down." 

Statement #2 - "Crazy as it sounds, the fight to limit--or even ban--birth control is a key issue in the upcoming presidential election."

    The first statement is medically baseless, the phrasing offensive, and the claim is irrelevant to the underlying issue of an abortion exception in cases of rape.  Republican Todd Akin's words were roundly and universally condemned and repudiated, even by Akin himself.   In addition to rejecting the statement itself, most Republicans and conservative politicians and pundits went on record calling for Akin to drop out of his Senate race against Claire McCaskill to avoid further damage to Republican electoral chances as well as the pro-life cause.  After a week of collecting signatures on a petition of support for Akin to stay in the race, he has managed to get only 7,760 (as of Monday morning.)  Given that McCaskill herself has not even called for Akin to drop out (which would not be in her best interest,) it's unclear how many of those 7,760 signers would even be Akin voters.  Based on the 2006 Senate election in Missouri, Akin will need over a million votes to beat McCaskill, a long way to go from 7,760.  Clearly support among Republicans and conservatives (and even pro-lifers) for Akin is meager, and support for his absurd statement is non-existent.
    Statement #2 appeared in an article written by Gretchen Voss in the September 2012 issue of Women's Health Magazine.  This statement is as baseless as Akin's and truly is as "crazy as it sounds." There is no Republican or conservative candidate for national office (or any candidate anywhere that I am aware of, and Voss cites none in her article) calling for birth control to be limited or banned, and yet Voss has the temerity to call this a "key issue in the upcoming presidential election."  Voss takes the objections of religious institutions to being forced to violate their beliefs and consciences by providing insurance that covers contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients, and turns it into a "fight to limit--or even ban--birth control."  Opposition to government funding of the same is also part of the "fight to limit--or even ban--birth control."  This is akin to past accusations that Republican efforts to control welfare spending or EPA regulation amount to "killing children."  The leap of logic is outrageous and indefensible.
    And here's the difference in the reaction to the two statements.  As I noted, the first has been nearly universally condemned and rejected.  But the second statement?  It was tweeted over the weekend by the campaign of President Barack Obama to the objection of... no one.

Make sure the women in your life know: twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) August 26, 2012

    If they are willing to say this now, one wonders what statements the Obama campaign is holding in reserve for the last month or week of the campaign.

Name It. Change It. Or Not.

    "Name It. Change It." is a website with a mission to "work to end sexist and misogynistic coverage of women candidates by all members of the press—from bloggers to radio hosts to television pundits."  According to their website, they are a "non-partisan project of WCF [Women's Campaign Fund] Foundation, Women’s Media Center, and Political Parity."  A recent post on the site by Leigh Ann Renzulli called out Slate’s Hanna Rosin for insinuating that "women only care about 'women's issues.'"

In a blog on Slate’s DoubleX Factor that was probably meant to demonstrate how important these recent issues are to women, Hanna Rosin seems to be saying that women only care about women’s issues (read: birth control) and not, say, the economy.

There is a moment in every recent election when issues that women care about become the critical issues of the campaign. This moment might arise because of a candidate’s mistress (Clinton) or because a women is on the ticket (other than Clinton, Sarah Palin)…This was supposed to be an election about the economy.

Rosin, a founding editor of DoubleX, clearly cares about women’s representation in the media, but she probably could have found a better way to discuss the role of women in the election.

So where might Hanna Rosin get the idea that women only care about women's issues ("read: birth control")?  On the home page of the Women’s Campaign Fund website (yes, the same WCF that sponsors Name It. Change It.) is their mission statement that reads in its entirety:

Women’s Campaign Fund (WCF), a nonpartisan organization, is dedicated to dramatically increasing the number of women in elected office who support reproductive health choices for all [emphasis added.]

So who is suggesting that women need only concern themselves with women's issues ("read: birth control")?  The very sponsors of Name It. Change It!  But not to worry.  I have used the reporting form on the Name It. Change It. site to alert them of this egregious example of sexism.  Now that I've Named It, let's see if they Change It.  Or not.