Letter: Birth control price increase is a necessary sobriety check for the libido

To the Editor:

If a year’s worth of Yale’s operating expenses were dedicated toward the purchase of a Ruger MK III .22 semiautomatic pistol for every student, every class of Yale undergraduates could be fully armed — for nearly 5,000 years. In addition to this numerical superiority, I think that handguns would do more for safety than birth control pills.

In other words, Yale can foot the bill… Should it?

The Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 did not place a “heavy financial burden” on drug companies and female students, and it did not deceptively “dictate personal health decisions” (“UHS: Subsidize birth control pill” 10/25.) The government has no place in providing these sorts of subsidies, and by inserting itself into the drug market to begin with, the government influences health decisions by encouraging these drugs to be bought. There was no additional tax levied against drug companies or females who use the pill, and by rightfully withdrawing itself from the drug market, the government allows cheaper generic brands to compete.

It may be true that important life decisions should not be restrained by financial limitations, but something as important as sexual responsibility is not cheap. Sexual responsibility should not be a matter of money, but it shouldn’t be a matter of exploitation, self-degradation, convenience or mere pleasure. I hope that the price increase gives us all a much-needed sobriety check, that we may re-evaluate how much these matters of sex are worth to us.

Even if one considers the pill to be the greatest contribution of the West, I do not believe that my tuition money should go towards birth control subsidies or the other murderous expenditures of YHS. I’m willing to compromise if we get the handguns.

A.J. Espinosa

Oct. 25

Espinosa is a sophomore in Trumbull College. He is a member of the Party of the Right.

Comments