Were one to have listened uncritically to the more hysterical elements in America’s news media over the past month, one would have concluded that contraception is intractably hard to come by in the United States; but a cursory glance at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s well-appointed website gives quite the opposite impression. There, contrarily, visitors are informed that anyone in need of contraception is somewhat spoiled for choice.
If the website’s extensive online search facility does not meet with their approval, habitués can instead call 311 and ask for advice directly. And the more tech savvy — or, perhaps, desperately mobile — can download the free “NYC Condom” app to their Windows, iPhone, BlackBerry, or Android smartphones and have its GPS service direct them to the nearest provider of free contraception with devastating accuracy. Never has a society been so precisely and easily led to safe sex. (One might well ask whether someone who can afford a smartphone and its attendant bills is genuinely in need of an app that locates “free” — i.e., paid for by taxpayers — condoms, but then this is 21st-century America, and New York’s mayor is Michael Bloomberg, so such petite questions are unavoidably consumed by bigger ones.)
Advertisement
The NYC Condom program’s not-so-subtle slogan is “Grab a handful and go,” which, having set out yesterday to source some myself, I found to be rather a solid description of the process. And the Department of Health’s offerings are not just generous but also various: “NYC”-branded condoms are available for both men and women, and in addition to the curiously titled “Lifestyles Alternative Condom,” complimentary “Personal Lubricant” is also available at select locations.
The program’s architects have clearly taken their charge seriously, for, according to the city’s website, there are 309 distribution points within five miles of National Review’s office. (And that’s just in Manhattan; each of the other four boroughs is served equally well by the city; not to mention the likes of Planned Parenthood, the various colleges, YMCA and YWCA branches, and suchlike.) Indeed, there are so many condoms available in my Chelsea neighborhood that I’m beginning to wonder how I ever missed them.
Within a few blocks’ walk of the Empire State Building, such diverse institutions as the Cornell University Family Life Development Center, Ginger’s Bar, Kenneth Cole, the Bellevue Hospital Center, the Virology Clinic, Uncle Charlie’s bar, the Children’s Aid Society, the Harm Reduction Coalition, and the Museum of Sex hand out contraceptives with abandon. Had I literally grabbed “a handful” at each one of these distributors, I could have opened my own shop, but, as it happens, I needed to visit only the first five listed on the free iPhone app for my pockets to start bulging.
Kenneth Cole, the designer-clothes store, was the most bizarre of my visits. I had expected at least to have to sidle up to an assistant and ask sotto voce if they had “something for the weekend” behind the store counter; but evidently one need not even go to the trouble of speaking to a staff member, for, on each of the tables — which sit out in the open, next to the racks of clothes, in case, perhaps, one be put in the mood by buying a couple of shirts — are large glass bowls full of the branded “NYC Condoms.” The branch I went to was at Grand Central Terminal; let it never be said again that visitors coming into the city by train have restricted access to contraception during their inaugural moments in New York.
The Children’s Aid Society was a little more comprehensive in its offerings. It has three centers — in midtown Manhattan, Harlem, and the Bronx — all of which receive New York State Title X grants. Women can visit centers in Harlem and the Bronx to arrange for their contraception — including more permanent methods such as the ring, the patch, and the Pill. If their insurance covers contraception, the insurance must pay for it. If it does not and the woman in question is living below the federal poverty line, she will be given the contraception without charge. (The HHS mandate, remember, is not designed to help the poor; the overlap between them and those who are employed is, by definition, minuscule.) Condoms, meanwhile, are just given out gratis, although the representative I spoke to told me that relatively few people take advantage of this provision.
I also visited a fairly startled woman at the Cornell University Family Life Development Center who was sufficiently embarrassed by my brazen, unexpected request for free contraception that she started ladling the stuff into my hands from a large box she kept in a cupboard before noticing what she was doing and inviting me to “take as much as I wanted.” I asked her if she normally receives such visits and she said that she did not. But she was well aware of the NYC Condom program and explained to me that Cornell distributes contraception widely outside of its office on Madison Avenue as well as to occasional drop-ins such as myself.
Cooke, you've found the argument that will make married men more interested in this issue and more supportive of Obama's position - the realization that if their wives can't afford to stay on the pill, they are going to have to suit-up every single time for decades.
maybe it is time for men to learn to "suit up" more often so more women can get off a medication (yes it is a medication) that comes with an inch thick warming label about the increase chance of stroke, blood clots, cancer and heart disease (which no one seems to care about). while it might "prevent" pregnancy it causes very serious side effects
Oral contraceptives are available for under $10/mo at any K-Mart, Target, Walmart or Kroger pharmacy. If you buy a three month supply, the price drops to about $6/mo. Without insurance.
The idea that people cannot afford contraception is ludicrous.
You probably haven't been paying attention or taking OC yourself, but most health plans have put the burden of OC costs onto their plan participants. It's now about $20 / month, even for generic. One time, I bought pills in Mexico City to take advantage of the deals there.
I've shopped around, and without health insurance, contraception can still cost a bit. When I lived in MD, Planned Parenthood had state funding and offered a sliding scale. For $40 I had a yearly exam (stirrups, pap smear and all, with STD testing) and paid $3 a month for a generic pill. All provided I made $200 pre-taxes or less a week.
Now that I live in Colorado, PP does not have state funding, and so no sliding scale. It's a $70 exam, and $36 a month for the same generic Pill I used in MD. After I did some shopping, I found Target offers the generic version of the generic for $20 a month.
No, these aren't crazy prices. However, it can still be pricy, but because I'm not buying a 40-pack of tampons twice a month (without the Pill regulating my period, I used to have a week long excruciatingly painful period every 10-12 days), it is the more affordable, and decidedly less stressful option.
I'm not saying people cannot afford it, but remember, mine is the extremely generic version for $20 a month, where other prescriptions are $70 or more a month. And remember not everyone takes contraception so they don't conceive. For those concerned about the warning label, every read the warning label for Viagra? Or Ambien? Or a million other drugs?
Wal-Mart, 1 month supply. $9 without insurance according to the NY times. Target, Krogers, same price.
"The birth control medications now available for $9 are generic versions of Ortho-Cyclen and Ortho-Tricyclen."
If "your wife" can't afford to stay on birth control, man up and pay the $9 yourself... it's cheaper than buying decent condoms.
And if you're not willing to pay for that, be honest this isn't "your wife" you're talking about; this is "your one-night stand while your wife is away on business" that you're worried about getting free contraception; and you really ought to be suiting up with a stranger anyhow when you're cheating.
Right, people use condoms only for their 1 night stand while their wife is away. Because only married people have sex. What century do you live in?
In regards to this article, I find it intellectually dishonest to claim in the beginning that birth control is difficult to get in the US is false because their are 300+ distribution centers in NY. Hint: Manhatten is not representitive of the US.
NR really needs to stop publishing annoyingly jocular articles about contraceptive access; you are likely to alienate even conservative women who support the bishops. Nearly all of the free condoms your writer acquired are being distributed as AIDS prevention, not as pregnancy prevention, and women aren't availing themselves of them because few sane and conscientious women would rely on condoms as a primary birth-control strategy. The failure rate is too high. The contraceptives that work are the contraceptives available by prescription only, the cost of which includes the gynecologists' visits, the contraceptive itself, and in the case of hormonal contraception blood tests. Which is why many women find the idea of insurance coverage for contraception appealing. It doesn't mean they are right, but they deserve better than these stupid and trivializing locker-room replies.
Why not just make the pill an over the counter medication. This would end the requirement for a Obgyn visit and the market would push down the cost even more, just look at the
cost of condoms.
A truly conservative woman would not rely on the state to stipulate the terms of her contracts.
I was glad that this article focused predominantly on the economic, rather than moral, aspects. The HHS contraception mandate is far more than offensive to religious freedom (although this alone does render it unconstitutional). The bigger picture, though, is that it is another unauthorized attack against free markets and private actors. The fact that the left so easily turned it into a "women's health" issue just shows how entitled we all feel today, that we don't even question that something we arguably might need ought be free. Don't sweat it, it's Obama money, baby.
Perhaps a mandate expressly denying women the right to purchase birth control, or for insurers to offer coverage for the same, could be said to offend women's health. But there is nothing of the sort here - all we ask is that people pay for the benefits conferred to them. Like everything else. There are a lot of things I need to stay alive, let alone happy, and somehow I don't rely on the government to insist someone else provide them to me for free.
Employers, insurers and taxpayers should all feel bamboozled, because we've been told we're incompetent to negotiate our own agreements, and must again pay for something in which we have no interest or representation.
Noooooooo, you still need to visit the doctor, get an exam, a wonderful experience, have him write the prescription and then go fill it at the pharmacy.
Having insurance pay for it doesn't mean you get your monthly pills without the prescription.
Condoms also prevent more than AIDS - there are many other STDs. If the condom prevents AIDS it will also prevent pregnancy. If it breaks, I wish you luck. A baby is more desirable than the other options.
The THEORETICAL success rate of the hormonal methods is higher, but it comes at a terrific cost of risk (for women). A further risk is that men have to have trust in the woman to have taken it - how would they know?
Condoms have around 15-18% failure rate, depending on use and the individual condom (PP's are the LEAST effective, according to one study). But, combined with spermicidal foam, they achieve a success rate nearly that of sterilization - almost 100%. And, they have the advantage of being transparent to both users - it can easily be determined whether they are being used.
The cost, with the condoms being free, or nearly free, is less than $10/month. And, a bonus, they also provide some protection against STDs.
Chrispro - you are so right. Very few women will depend upon a man to manage HER contraceptive concerns. The universe Mr Cooke lives in is not where most women live. It is so curious that men have taken it upon themselves to forcefully engage in this most intimate of women's concerns.
Forget the universe, most American women don't live in the same neighborhood as Charles Cooke. Not in the same income bracket either.
This rather entertaining article seemed to be more about one man's view of male contraceptive concerns. I do believe that men should be concerned about contraception, of course they should. We just shouldn't be surprised that his insights don't go appear to go much farther than that of the users of the 'emergency' supply in the bar after happy hour. By the way, do you think that there were condoms and lubricant available in the women's washroom too? I get the impression that it didn't occur to him to ask.
Most people I know, most women I know, don't consider condoms (whether free, flavored or fluorescent) a viable option for long term birth control. Mr. Cooke might also be surprised to learn that many women make use of condoms to avoid catching an STD while also employing some other form of contraceptive that is entirely within their own control. There are other perspectives out here. He should talk to people, even female non-Chelsea living people, about their thoughts and concerns re: birth control and the political hay being made on the topic.
Follow
