Letter: Subsidized birth control should be available regardless of personal morality

To the Editor:

Yesterday’s letter from A.J. Espinosa attempts to muddy the debate over the price of contraception (“Birth control price increase is a necessary sobriety check for the libido” 10/29). Espinosa’s first line of argument (that the new policy does not place a financial burden on students) is patently false. The cost of contraception has increased from $48-$56 a year to $300-$600.

Espinosa’s real objection is not to subsidizing birth control, but to its very existence. He states that “[Sex] shouldn’t be a matter of mere pleasure” and refers to the distribution of birth control as a “murderous expenditure.”

Espinosa is entitled to the belief that life begins at conception, but he is not entitled to impose that belief on all Yale students by inflating the price of contraception any more than he is entitled to hide the condoms the University provides free of charge.

The University should continue trying to find a workaround to lower the cost of contraception, so that undergraduates can make decisions based on personal morality, not fiscal necessity.

Leah Anthony Libresco

Oct. 29

Libresco is a freshman in Jonathan Edwards College.

Comments