Equally amusing was the following statement by vengeful sex woman: “I do less because of this — less shopping, less going out to eat,” said Ms. Ryan, who has helped organize efforts to educate others on campus about the price jump. “For students, this is very, very expensive.” I don't know who the education efforts are aimed at; I'd think women would notice the price jump when they went to buy their birth control, but the restraints placed on shopping and going out are indeed tragic. Some might see this as a reasonable trade-off between two recreational options--sex or cute shoes. But evidently, college sex is completely price-inelastic.
Indeed, the NARAL people emphasize the extremity of the situation in some places: “This is a state school where people are on Pell grants and don’t have huge amounts of spending money,” Ms. Hagen said. “For them this is like a choice — groceries or birth control.” Truly, what kind of inhumane choice is this to ask a young woman to make? Sustenance or sex? Who in their right mind could choose sustenance? That is why it is necessary for drug companies to subsidize my access to birth control, so that I don't have to starve to death.
Phoebe argues the serious side of this change--namely that it burdens women disproportionately, and unfairly criticizes their consumption choices without holding men accountable at all:
Seeing as they are going nuts and buying everything in sight, they do not deserve to have any control over their wombs at a time in their lives when they have neither the time nor the income (nor, arguably, the wisdom) to raise children. Oh, and of course it's only women whose frivolous spending is really being discussed, since unless one is married and splitting all costs, it's typically the uterus-having individuals making the purchases on their own. And thanks to biology, it's always the woman who faces the physical consequences, whether abortion or childbirth. But to be fair, if these silly girls will spend $10 on lip gloss, they are old enough to face the responsibilities of motherhood.This is true, but I think, unavoidable so long as women are the only uterus-havers. The responsibility may not be evenly distributed, and women may be required to shoulder more of it, but that is not a compelling reason for them to avoid it. This is especially true given that the consequences of sex don't change if it's done in the name of furthering social equality. And here too, at least relative abstinence remains an extremely reasonable option (and, along with lesbianism, the only equalizer of biological inequality), despite its unpopularity. If you want to worry as little as men about pregnancy, don't have sex with them. At the very least, have sex with someone who you're certain will take responsibility. Maybe consider making him pay for half of your now prohibitively expensive birth control?