Columnist Melissa Schorr: The conundrum of congress and contraceptives

Melissa Schorr

Monday, Oct. 19, 1998 | 9:57 a.m.

It seemed like such a sure thing, a no-brainer, an easy win.

It passed the House. It sailed through the Senate. Feminists were already patting one another on the back.

Then, almost without warning, it was in peril, thanks to far-right extremists.

"It" was Senator Harry Reid's proposed provision in a 1999 spending bill requiring federal health insurance companies to cover contraceptives for their 1.2 million female employees.

The hope was that insurance companies would be shamed into offering the same deal to the private sector, clearing the way for a broader bill requiring coverage for the rest of us.

Americans seemed to lap up the legislation: A Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 75 percent favored such a law -- even if it would cost them a few extra bucks.

After all, paying for contraceptives up front is cheaper than paying for an abortion or a delivery later on. And no one considers reversible birth control a frivolous health care frill like a nip 'n' tuck -- except, it seems, half of traditional fee-for-service insurance companies, who still don't offer coverage. (Getting your tubes tied, though? Fully covered.)

Regrettably, our Founding Fathers neglected to declare reproductive-free sex an inalienable right like the pursuit of happiness. You never see insurance companies denying anyone their Prozac, now do you?

Much of what gave the bill its zing was the so-called "Viagra argument." The recent hoopla over the male impotence pill raised the question of parity: Why were health insurance plans subsidizing men getting their jollies, but not subsidizing women getting theirs -- safely?

It's a dubious comparison; the two have such vastly different functions. But Americans agree on which really matters. The same poll found that half support laws mandating coverage of Viagra (hmmm, wonder which half?), while three-quarters (both sides of the aisle, so to speak) support coverage of birth control.

Still, a handful of Republican senators tried to sandbag the provision, deciding that some of the FDA-approved devices, like the IUD and the pill, were tantamount to abortion and at odds with their pro-life stance.

An angry Harry Reid, co-sponsor of the bi-partisan legislation along with Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), stalled traffic on the Senate floor for three hours last Friday, nearly hijacking his peers with a filibuster, Jimmy Stewart-style.

"If ever there was an example of what an anti-woman Congress this is, this is it," fumed Reid, who has earned his stripes this season as the solitary suit among a lineup of skirts on a Nevada Democratic Party flier openly touting Girl Power.

The brutal irony here is that feminist groups cited bills like this as why they stuck by President Clinton despite the Monica mess. After being dubbed hypocrites for standing by their philandering man, they nearly had nothing to show for it but an empty-handed, Walk of Shame back home.

I say nearly -- for the story has something of a happy ending: The bill was resuscitated and enfolded into the omnibus appropriations bill expected to be passed this week, with a compromise clause excusing those with religious or moral objections.

But Reid's broader bill for all Americans -- the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act -- which is stalled in committee until next session, no longer seems as sure a thing.

And, in the long run, who really pays if the insurance companies won't?

We all do. That's the real no-brainer.