Still More on Contraception Subsidies at Colleges

[Ellen Wertheimer, professor of law at Villanova, sent me this message
--and gave me permission to post it:]

I have been following the debate on the increase in the cost of oral
contraception with interest.  I frankly do not understand the position
that cheaper contraception is a bad idea.  Surely the greatest evil
under discussion here is abortion.  I am at a loss to explain, much less
justify, any position that creates a greater risk of more unwanted
pregnancies and, a fortiori, more abortions, no matter what other issues
may be lurking under the surface.

The one issue that seems to have been neglected in the posts so far is
the disparate impact a price increase has on poorer students.  Students
with money will buy contraceptives no matter what they cost.
(Incidentially, oral contraceptives are being used therapeutically in
current medicine to combat anemia in young women.)  Students who do not
have enough money to buy the pill will therefore be at greater risk of
unwanted pregnancy.  (There is no evidence that teenagers stop having
sex in the absence of affordable contraceptives.  To the contrary.)
Presumably, students who do not have enough money to afford the pill and
become pregnant as a result will also be less able to afford a safe
abortion or to survive the educational disruption that will result if
they are unable or unwilling to terminate the pregnancy.

Increasing the cost of contraception thus contributes to the divide
between the rich and the poor in our society, surely not a goal devoutly
to be wished.  It seems to me that inexpensive, reliable contraception
serves both the goal of reducing the number of abortions and the goal of
equalizing those who have less money and those who have more.  It is
also perhaps worth pointing out that many of those who will suffer by
reason of the price increase are not themselves Catholic.