On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which was signed into law by President Obama in March of 2010. This law mandates that both the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill are fully covered with a prescription by an employers' health insurer. The ACA makes both forms of contraception extremely affordable and easy to get for the women in need of them "("Birth Control Benefits and Reproductive Health Care Options in the Health Insurance Marketplace"). If the GOP wins the presidential nomination in the 2016 election, many candidates have vowed to repeal this act or to make major changes to it. While the ACA does not focus solely on birth control regulation, contraceptives and the question of a woman's right to control her own body have been the most contentious parts of the act since it was passed into law. The portion of the ACA that addresses birth control of the Affordable Care Act should not be repealed or changed because it gives women the freedom to be in charge of their own bodies. 

Legally, all women should have access to birth control that prevents pregnancy before implantation; the 1965 supreme court case Griswold v. Connecticut, which states that it is unconstitutional to prevent a woman from obtaining birth control, set a precedent for women's control over their own sexual reproduction. Griswold, along with his associate, was arrested for counseling married couples on the basis of preventing contraception. The Supreme Court invalidated a law that infringed on the private marital lives of citizens, by preventing access to one's birth control methods (Griswold v. Connecticut). I argue that the government should legally mandate that every woman in the United States has access to the birth control and emergency contraceptive pills. First I will explain the various methods of birth control and how they are commonly believed to be linked; then I will address the positive effects of these pills because often, many focus only on the negatives of the birth control pill, especially with the portrayal of these pills in the media; lastly I will acknowledge the counter arguments to the claim that the government should mandate that all women have access to contraception.

 Starting out with the basics, the birth control pill contains two hormones, estrogen and progestin. These hormones may sound familiar because they are naturally occurring hormones that are found in a woman's body. The main purpose of this pill is to effect the levels of estrogen and progestin that are in a woman's body in order to stop ovulation. Ovulation means that an egg will no longer be released from the ovary to meet with the sperm. Another goal of increasing these hormones in a woman's body is to make cervical mucus thicker, in order to prevent the egg from meeting with the sperm. The pill can only stop a pregnancy if it is taken before sexual intercourse, in fact it is 99% effective if taken correctly; if a woman takes the birth control pill after being sexually active, the pill cannot terminate or end the pregnancy. The average birth control pill can cost from zero to fifty dollars, but most of these pills are covered by insurance with a prescription ("Birth Control Pills - Birth Control Pill - The Pill."). A common misconception of the birth control pill is that its only purpose is to prevent pregnancy. While this was the main goal of creating this pill, there are many known positive side effects that come with the effecting the estrogen and progestin hormone levels in the body. According to Women's Health Magazine, the birth control pill can help decrease acne along with cramps and decrease the severity of menstrual bleeding (Crain). The birth control pill can enhance a woman's life in so many ways and all women should have direct access to this pill.

In contrast to the birth control pill, the emergency contraceptive pill (Plan B), is intended to be used to prevent pregnancy after a sexual encounter has occurred. The pill contains the hormone levonorgestrel, which is also a naturally occurring hormone in a woman's body, that is intended to thicken the lining of the uterus making it difficult for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterine wall. Plan b is up to 89% effective 72 hours after unprotected sex and is 95% effective if taken within the first 24 hours of the sexual encounter. This pill does not stop the development of a fetus after it has attached on to the uterine lining ("Plan B (Morning-After Pill): Effectiveness and Side Effects.").

Birth control and plan b are often believed to be the same pill, or work in the same way. This belief is based on the simple knowledge that both the emergency contraceptive pill and the birth control pill stop the risk of a pregnancy before implantation. According to Web Md, implantation occurs when a fertilized egg attached itself to the uterine lining in order to grow a fetus. Both of these pills strive to increase the amount of a hormone that is naturally found in the body in order to modify the actions of the uterus. They both serve the the main function to prevent a pregnancy, but they do have several distinct differences. As stated previously, the birth control pill is intended to be taken before intercourse and the plan b pill is intended to be taken after intercourse. Birth control pills come in 28 day packs, with one pill that needs to be taken every night in order to ensure that the hormones levels are being altered effectively. The plan b pill is one pill, that needs to be taken within the range of 72 hours since intercourse. A common misconception is that these pills effect the body in the same way, which is false because they both target different hormones in the body. These pills are often times linked together in arguments made both for and against the use of these contraceptive methods. It is important to recognize that these pills are not to be taken in the same way, but in essence their main functions are the same. The argument for birth control, can be greatly enhanced by the argument for the emergency contraceptive pill and vis versa. It is important to look at both of these pills while debating that there should be a government mandate on both of these pills because these pills are so often time liked together. 

One of the greatest disagreements on the topic of contraceptives is the question that at what age should a person be allowed to obtain the birth control or emergency contraceptive pills. Today, a girl needs to be 15 years or older to obtain the plan b pill without a prescription by a doctor (Sifferlin). In 26 states in the U.S and in Washington D.C, all women regardless of age are able to obtain birth control without the consent of a parent. Other states only allow access to birth control under special situations or allow the physicians to decide whether the parent should be notified about their child getting birth control as they see fit ("Parental Consent and Birth Control"). The most prevalent argument against minors getting complete access to the pill without parental consent is the notion that girls at a young age do not fully understand how these pills work (Bartels). F.K Bartels, a writer for Catholic Online, states that no one underage should have access to these pills, but acknowledges that his ideal belief is not realistic in today's society. His solution to this problem is to insist that a underage girl has parental consent in order to receive these pills (Bartels). This solution is absurd. A girl regardless of age should not have to answer to anyone while she is trying to protect herself and her future by using preventive measures to pregnancy. Putting this restriction on these pills will only hurt a girl, not help her.

Bartels argument is flawed for many different reasons. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, to legally mandate that all underage girls need parental consent to obtain these contraceptive pills would violate their constitutional rights. In particular, the right to privacy. If parental consent was needed to obtain contraceptives, the government would be going against the way in how contraceptive services have remained a fundamental privacy right over the past three decades. The Center for Reproductive Rights emphasizes that young girls should be in control of their own body and should not have to answer to anyone based on their decisions reflecting their reproductive rights. It would be against the girl's natural right as a citizen of the United States to deny her the use of contraceptives. Every girls has the right to privacy, so if she wants to protect her body from an unwanted pregnancy it is not the position of the government to tell her who she needs to inform in order to obtain this pill. Just because a girl is not yet a legal adult, does not give the government the right to infringe on the intimate details of her personal life or try to increase the family dynamic. It is a girls body, and if she wants to protect herself from un intended pregnancy no one should have the right to stop her or infringe on her right to privacy.

One of the biggest misconceptions about the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill is that these pills are equal to the abortion pill, or to having an abortion. F.K Bartlels of the Catholic Online website states that these two forms of contraception react with the ovaries the same way as the abortion pill does. Amy Jo Clark and Miriam Weaver, authors of the book, "Right for a Reason: Life Liberty and a Crapload of Common Sense", state that this idea that Bartels proposes is a common misconception which a lot of people believe to be true. To combat this argument, it is important to first revisit how the birth control and emergency contraceptive pill work. The birth control pill strives to stop ovulation so an egg cannot meet with sperm, if an eggs is never fertilized, then it can never be implemented in the uterus (Planned Parenthood). The emergency contraceptive pill, although taken after intercourse, strives to stop the fertilization of the egg and if the egg happens to become fertilized, stop the implantation of it in the uterus. Both of these pills do not and cannot terminate a fertilized egg after it has implanted itself the uterine lining ("Conception & Pregnancy: Ovulation, Fertilization, and More.."). The Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health states that both the U.S Department of Health and Human Services, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) state that pregnancy beings after implantation. Therefore, neither of these pills can stop nor terminate a pregnancy according to the government. It is very important that the general public understands that these contraceptive pills are not the same as the abortion pill. They both act on a women's body differently. It is wrong of opposers of the birth control pill and emergency contraceptive pill to argue that these pills kill an unborn baby, which is proven to be false. All women should have access to these pills because it does not terminate a pregnancy, but prevents it from happening to un wanting mothers before it can occur. It is not the government's place to interfere with a women's decision to choose on whether to have a child or not, before a women even has a fetus inside of her. The government can protect the lives of unborn children, but cannot deprive a woman of preventive measures to get pregnant before there is implantation. With the misconception of the plan b pill and the birth control pill being the same as the abortion pill proven false, the government should mandate the availability of these contraceptives to all women. 

An argument made against the government mandating that all Women, have access to the emergency contraceptive pill, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), is the notion that it the number of women having unprotected sex would decrease if birth control wasn't mandated to be available to them; teenagers in particular. The ACLU also states that another argument against teenagers getting the pill is that people think that parental communication about contraceptives would increase the number of girls who seek out safe sex methods. The ACLU states these claims and then disproves them with facts about the teenage use of contraceptives. It states that 47% of girls said they would stop attending reproductive heath service appointments if they had to inform their parents that they are doing so. The really frightening statistic that the ACLU produces is the fact that 99% of teenagers, of the 47% that state they would stop going to get reproductive health screenings if their parents were to be notified, said that they would continue to be sexually active ("Preventing Teenagers from Getting Contraceptives Unless They Tell a Parent Puts Teens at Risk"). This shows that depriving a teenager to the undeniable right to get birth control can only hurt the girl more in the long run. With the statistics to show that the number of girls being sexually active would not decrease if there was a parental consent mandate on either of these pills, the government is only hurting the future of young girls if they are denied direct access to these contraceptive measures. The government should want to protect the futures of the youth, not scare them away from the use of preventive measures of contraception. The government should mandate that all women, including teenagers, should have unrestricted access to both the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill.

In the previously mentioned landmark Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the privacy rights of married couples in terms of contraceptive use was put up for debate. Griswold, an executive director for planned parenthood in Connecticut, and his co worker Buxton, a licensed physician who worked for planned parenthood, both counseled and informed married couples on the basis of contraception. In the year 1965 they were "charged with violating a statute preventing the distribution of advice to married couples regarding the prevention of conception" (Griswold v. Connecticut). The accused in this case appealed that this ruling violated the 14th amendment which pertains to privacy among citizens. In a 7 to 2 ruling in favor of declaring this statute unconstitutional, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the right of a married couples covered under the 14th amendment of the constitution and the idea that married couples who seek out emergency contraceptives have the right to privacy in their decision to do so. This Supreme Court case made it illegal for the government to infringe on the lives of married couples on the basis of contraceptive needs (Griswold v. Connecticut). This case is so important to the argument in favor of these pills because it emphasizes that the government has no right to infringe on the personal lives of married couples. It is in a citizen's constitutional rights that the government cannot infringe on their privacy, so if the government were to deny married couples of contraception they would be violating the constitution on the basis of receiving intimate information about these couples. The government should mandate that all women have the unrestricted access to both the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill on the grounds that it is against a couple's right to privacy if they have to inform the government in the intimate decisions of their household.

One of the main groups of people that is known to lead a huge opposition movement against the use of contraceptives in the United States and globally is the Roman Catholic Church. In the article, "Sometimes Nuns Need Contraceptives, Too" written by Stephanie Mencimer, she argues that even Nuns need access to birth control. The Affordable Act states that an employer must provide at least one method of birth control to be covered by the employee's insurance. One exception to the rule is religious employer health plans. Under this exception, houses of worship don't have to provide coverage but, "for all other religious employers women are provided contraceptive coverage through a third party" ("ObamaCare Birth Control - Obamacare Facts."). Before this exception was made to this rule, the Catholic Church put Nuns on the pedestal to invalidate Obama's mandate on the need to provide birth control to employees. The old virgin Nuns seemed to be the perfect poster child to fight against Obama's mandate. Mencimer claims that this idea is flawed and in fact, Nuns should have undeniable access to birth control methods too.

The main argument the reporter for Mother Jones' states is that Nuns should have access to birth control too due to the adverse benefits to the pill that are no way connected to preventing pregnancy. As stated before many women are prescribed the birth control pill without the need  to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Other reasons the pill can be prescribed to a woman is to decrease menstrual bleeding, decrease cramping and to smoothen skin; all symptoms that are very prevalent among older women, including nuns. Mencimer states that there is no perfect plaintiff to oppose President Obama's mandate under the Affordable Care Act for the reason that Nuns are women too and they should not be denied the right to the birth control pill for one or more of the outcomes the pill can be used for. This is the reason why the Affordable Care Act states that for women who work under religious employers, they can receive birth control methods through a third party (Mencimer). Just because Nuns are supposed to oppose the birth control pill and emergency contraceptive pill, does not mean that they should not have access to it. With the various benefits of the pill, independent of  preventing pregnancy, it is unlawful to deny these Nuns basic rights as American's due to their occupation.

The Catholic Church's opposition to the birth control pill does not stop there. Another huge argument that the Catholic Church makes is that the use of the birth control to prevent pregnancy is "unnatural". The long held Christian opinion on birth control was that it held a direct correlation to promiscuity and adultery. In the 1930's many Christian denominations such as the Anglican Church and the Protestant denomination began to ease their prohibitions to birth control, but the Catholic Church stood it's ground in its stark opposition. PBS states that, "On New Year's Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned any 'artificial' means of birth control" ("People & Events: The Catholic Church and Birth Control."). They banned the use of condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps which serve to block the journey of sperm during intercourse. Along with these, spermicides and suppositories all intended to kill or impede sperm were also banned. Thirty years later, the arrival of the birth control pill occurred at the same time when the Church was going through a reform. The approval of the birth control pill was believed to be soon approved by the Catholic Church in the 1960's, but it never was due to the fact that again, it is a "unnatural" form of preventing pregnancy. The argument of the "unnatural" power of the birth control pill has recently been at center the stage for debate  ("People & Events: The Catholic Church and Birth Control."). This argument is a very important one for the government to mandate the use of these contraceptive pills to all women, especially nuns.

With the opposition of the Catholic Church to the birth control pill at an all time high, John Rock was exactly what the supporters of the birth control pill needed to combat the strong opposition. According to the PBS article "The Catholic Church and Birth Control", John Rock is a Catholic physician who publicly argued against the Church's opinion on the birth control pill. Along with Dr. Gregory Pincus, John Rock carried out trials on the pill and argued that the pills were not "unnatural" as the Catholic Church viewed it as because the pill are merely an extension of the body's natural functioning. This is significant because it proves that the Church's stance on these pill is somewhat flawed and how can they believe that this pill is unnatural when scientific evidence proves otherwise. Since the pills do not add any hormones to the body that are not already prevalent in the women's reproductive system and it does not tamper with or kill sperm, he argues that this is a natural form of contraception and that the Church should un ban the use of this pill ("The Catholic Church and Birth Control"). With the Catholic Church's opposition to the birth control pill being "unnatural" proved to be flawed, the government has every right to mandate that all women have direct access to both the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill.

With the 2016 election right around the corner, it is no wonder that the discussion on contraceptives have reached an all time high. With the election in full swing, the Democrats running for office have on their platform that the birth control aspect of the Affordable Care Act should stay as is. As many know, most liberal's believe that contraceptives should be readily available to Women and that their insurance should cover all if not most of the cost. In the upcoming election there are two democrats that are still in the race for the white house, Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton. Out of these two Democratic nominee's, both are in favor of insurance fully covering the cost of contraception to Women (Berg). Planned Parenthood states that both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are huge supporters of the ACA and especially in favor of the provision that ensures coverage for birth control with no co-pay. These candidates believe that it is a woman's natural right to have access to birth control with little to no cost at all (Berg). Democratic view points out a women's undeniable right to contraceptives is very admirable. A woman should have the right to basic health care that can greatly enhance their life and as a country, the United States should stand up for women's rights and vote for a candidate who will keep pushing for the rights of women nationwide.

 With the Affordable Care Act being signed into law in 2012, conservative candidates are in a hurry to repeal the Act immediately or at least alter it in a very monumental way. The average conservative view on contraceptives is that they should not be funded by the government, insurance companies should not have to pay for it and overall do not support the pill. There are three Republican candidates still in the race to become America's 45th president; Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Donald Trump. Planned Parenthood states that Cruz strongly wants to repeal the ACA and its historic advancements that it has made for women. Cruz even orchestrated the government shutdown in 2013 over Obamacare in a last minute effort to repeal the Act. John Kasich and Donald Trump are in the similar viewpoint in that they want to repeal Obamacare and have no plans to keep protections of a woman's right to oral contraceptives in place (Berg). One huge argument that non supporters of the conservative view point argue is that the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill can greatly decrease the number of abortions that take place in the United States every year; something which conservatives feel very strongly against. For conservatives to say that they do not support a women's right to contraceptive services, is going against the natural rights of women everywhere. With their strong held negative opinion on abortion, the birth control and emergency contraceptive pill could greatly help them in favor of their opposition to abortion. If these candidates were not so closed minded to increasing women's rights, millions of pregnancies could be prevented before an abortion needs to take place.

As I stated before, the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill are not the same as the abortion pill. In the article titled, "Dear Fellow Conservatives: Want Fewer Abortions? Tolerate Birth Control", Time Magazine takes a stab at the conservative point of view that rejects both forms of oral contraception and abortions.  The authors Amy Jo Clark and Miriam Weaver strive to tell conservatives, that their ideal birth control situation is not realistic. First they begin with the fact the plan b pill and the birth control pill do not work the same as the abortion pill does. Secondly they state that, "only about forty percent of fertilized eggs ever implant into the uterus naturally" and that conservatives view every instance of a fertilized egg not implanting in the uterus as abortion, they are in essence suggesting that countless women are murderers without even realizing it (Clark and Weaver). This is important because it shows how single minded opposers to these pills are because they do not take in consideration what the birth control pill and the plan b pill is intended to do. It is wrong for opposers to say that these pills terminate a pregnancy, when these pills only serve the purpose to enhance the natural ovulation process of a woman and to say that the natural ovulation process of a woman can be considered an abortion is absurd. Just because an egg does not meet with the sperm does not make it an abortion. Clark and Weaver lastly state that they, "believe that what can realistically help abortions become more rare is balanced encouragement of birth control options and a broader tolerance of emergency contraception". Women make mistakes, and the only way to reduce the number of abortions in the United States is to mandate that all women have access to the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill so pregnancy can be avoided, not terminated. 

With the 2016 election coming up in less than six months, this is the perfect time to demand that the government keep the Affordable Care Act in tact and mandate that every woman have un restricted access to both the birth control pill and the emergency contraceptive pill. Both of these pills strive to prevent pregnancy before implantation occurs with the use of natural hormones. These pills are not the same as the abortion pill. In fact, the use of these pills can greatly decrease the number of abortions that occur in America every single year. There are many positives to the pill that have nothing to do with contraception like decrease in headaches, smoothing the skin, and decreasing menstrual cramps. To prevent any women from obtaining the birth control pill through insurance on basis of religious views rejects them their basic right to medical care. The government has no right to interfere with intimate contraceptive discussions between married couples. The Catholic Church has a flawed view that these pills are unnatural, which was disproved because the pills contain hormones that are already present in the woman's reproductive system. In this upcoming election, the only was to protect a woman's reproductive freedom is to vote democratic, so the ACA mandate sticks; all women have the right to the undeniable access of oral contraceptives that prevent pregnancy before implantation.

