The IUD Capital of the U.S.

In Colorado and Iowa, a pilot program shows that IUDs and implants can dramatically reduce teen pregnancies and abortions. But policy results and politics don’t always mix.

April 24, 2015, 1:01 a.m.

Don Coram is not ex­actly your ste­reo­typ­ic­al birth-con­trol cham­pi­on. A ranch­er, born and bred, the 66-year-old Re­pub­lic­an Col­or­ado state rep­res­ent­at­ive still raises cattle in Mon­trose, on the dusty West­ern Slope. He’s a big man, with a big, white mus­tache and side­burns, though his hair’s still steely gray. When we meet in his of­fice in the State Cap­it­ol Build­ing, he’s wear­ing black cow­boy boots and khaki-colored jeans with his blazer and tie—look­ing, as he says with rel­ish, like a true “red­neck Re­pub­lic­an.” He typ­ic­ally votes ac­cord­ingly: Coram op­posed Col­or­ado’s Medi­caid ex­pan­sion and stood against civil uni­ons—even though his only son, who is gay, im­plored him to change his mind.

In this year’s ses­sion, however, Coram is the un­likely co­spon­sor of an in­nov­at­ive pro­gram to in­crease wo­men’s use of long-term birth-con­trol meth­ods like the in­trauter­ine device (bet­ter-known as the IUD) and hor­mon­al im­plants. He’s con­vinced that these meth­ods re­duce teen preg­nan­cies and abor­tions, and mount­ing evid­ence backs him up. Ac­cord­ingly, his ward­robe has fea­tured an un­usu­al ad­di­tion: a pin in the T shape of an IUD, right next to the Amer­ic­an flag on his lapel. A “gal in Ohio,” he says, was mak­ing IUD-shaped ear­rings and selling them on the web­site Etsy, and “any­way, I took the ear­ring and made a lapel pin out of it.” He de­lighted in the re­ac­tions he got: “I would guess that 95 per­cent of people in the build­ing didn’t know what it was. A lot of people would laugh and shake their heads and then say, ‘OK, what is it?‘“Š”

Coram be­came aware of the so­cial ills of un­in­ten­ded preg­nancy when he was elec­ted to his loc­al school board in the early 1980s. Mon­trose County had one of the state’s highest teen-preg­nancy rates, and the board was at a loss for how to keep girls from drop­ping out of school. The prob­lem was so com­mon at Mon­trose High School, Coram says, the stu­dents joked that the “M” stood for “Ma­ter­nity.” The is­sue brings out the wonky side of Coram: He reels off the cur­rent stat­ist­ics every chance he gets: “80 per­cent of teen moth­ers that be­come preg­nant will be on wel­fare with­in a year. At age 30, of these teen girls, only 1.5 per­cent of them will have earned a [col­lege] de­gree. Daugh­ters of teen moth­ers are 22 per­cent more likely them­selves to be­come teen moth­ers. Sons of teen moth­ers are 13 per­cent more likely to be in­car­cer­ated.”

(RE­LATED: Re­pub­lic­ans’ Con­tra­cep­tion Puzzle)

Last fall, of­fi­cials at Col­or­ado’s Pub­lic Health and En­vir­on­ment De­part­ment told Coram about a policy ex­per­i­ment aimed at re­du­cing abor­tions and un­planned preg­nan­cies—one that had been op­er­at­ing quietly since 2009 and had shown stag­ger­ing res­ults. The Col­or­ado Ini­ti­at­ive to Re­duce Un­in­ten­ded Preg­nancy was the fruit of a $23.6 mil­lion grant from the Susan Thompson Buf­fett Found­a­tion, an Omaha-based char­it­able out­let for in­dus­tri­al­ist War­ren Buf­fett’s vast wealth. For five years in Iowa and six years in Col­or­ado—long enough to gauge the ef­fect—the Buf­fett Found­a­tion made IUDs and hor­mon­al im­plants, which are tiny rods that go in a wo­man’s arm, free and widely avail­able. These are long-act­ing, re­vers­ible meth­ods, with zero main­ten­ance and a fail­ure rate of less than 1 per­cent, far bet­ter than birth-con­trol pills or con­doms—but they are ex­pens­ive, to the tune of as much as $1,200. (In the long run, IUDs and im­plants can be more cost-ef­fect­ive than oth­er forms of birth con­trol—they last between three and ten years, de­pend­ing on the mod­el, while pills can cost about $50 a month—but the up-front price can be pro­hib­it­ive.) The found­a­tion hoped that high­er use of the devices in Col­or­ado and Iowa would re­duce abor­tions and un­wanted preg­nan­cies, and also spur na­tion­al in­terest in bol­ster­ing the use of long-term devices.

As Coram pored over the ini­ti­at­ive’s res­ults, he found him­self agree­ing with the state Pub­lic Health De­part­ment’s con­clu­sion—that these forms of birth con­trol were the best an­swer avail­able to the so­cial prob­lem he had been mulling for dec­ades. Since the pro­gram began, use of long-term con­tra­cep­tion had gone from 5 per­cent of wo­men seen in clin­ics tracked by the ini­ti­at­ive to 24 per­cent, and the teen birth rate had dropped by 40 per­cent. The fisc­ally con­ser­vat­ive side of Coram lit up when he saw an­oth­er num­ber: The state es­tim­ated the ini­ti­at­ive had saved $5.85 in short-term Medi­caid costs for every dol­lar spent (over the long term, the sav­ings might be great­er).

The IUD may be the best con­tra­cept­ive in the view of most health ex­perts, but it’s also the most con­tro­ver­sial in the eyes of the pub­lic.

But the fu­ture of the ex­per­i­ment was un­cer­tain; the fund­ing was set to run out in June, and re­pla­cing it with state dol­lars would take bi­par­tis­an sup­port in Col­or­ado’s di­vided le­gis­lature. (The House is ma­jor­ity Demo­crat­ic; the Sen­ate, ma­jor­ity Re­pub­lic­an.) So Coram signed on as the lone GOP co­spon­sor of one of the ses­sion’s top Demo­crat­ic pri­or­it­ies: a $5 mil­lion ap­pro­pri­ation to keep the pro­gram go­ing, en­thu­si­ast­ic­ally backed by Demo­crat­ic Gov. John Hick­en­loop­er. The Re­pub­lic­an teamed up on the bill with KC Beck­er, a lib­er­al Boulder rep­res­ent­at­ive who made an un­likely ally, to say the least: An en­vir­on­ment­al law­yer who spent years work­ing for the In­teri­or De­part­ment, she’s Coram’s lead­ing ad­versary on the Ag­ri­cul­ture, Live­stock, and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee. Coram owns urani­um mines, which Beck­er has pushed to reg­u­late. Last year, when Beck­er ran a ma­jor wa­ter-ef­fi­ciency bill, Coram was part of the op­pos­i­tion that pres­sured Hick­en­loop­er in­to veto­ing it. This year, she tried once more, “and again, he at­tacked it to no end,” she says. “We were sit­ting in com­mit­tee one mo­ment hav­ing a strong dis­agree­ment on this bill, and at the same time, we knew we were both spon­sor­ing this IUD bill,” Beck­er adds with a laugh.

(RE­LATED: How the House GOP’s Abor­tion Bill Fell Apart)

Coram sees noth­ing con­tra­dict­ory about a con­ser­vat­ive call­ing for spend­ing mil­lions on IUDs and im­plants. To him, it’s plain com­mon sense. “If you are like I am, and you do not sup­port abor­tion, you want to break the cycle of poverty, you want young people to have a bet­ter life, you want to save tax­pay­er dol­lars—why would you not sup­port this le­gis­la­tion?” he asks, star­ing me down across a desk cluttered with stacks of pa­per and framed pho­tos of Coram with his wife and son (an al­lit­er­at­ive trio: Don, Di­anna, and Dee, their smil­ing faces turned out to­ward the door).

Of course, the polit­ics of birth con­trol are nev­er that simple. That’s es­pe­cially true of the IUD; it may be the best con­tra­cept­ive out there in the view of most health ex­perts, but it’s also the most con­tro­ver­sial in the eyes of the pub­lic. The dan­ger­ous side ef­fects of a pop­u­lar brand man­u­fac­tured in the 1970s gave IUDs a repu­ta­tion for be­ing un­safe. The fact that wo­men with IUDs can have “worry-free” sex—with no need to sched­ule a shot or re­mem­ber to take a pill—strikes some so­cial con­ser­vat­ives as an in­vit­a­tion to more pre­marit­al sex (and dis­ease). Oth­ers be­lieve that be­cause IUDs can pre­vent a fer­til­ized egg from im­plant­ing on the uter­ine wall, their work­ings are tan­tamount to abor­tion.

(Neil Webb)

Coram knew full well that his and Beck­er’s pro­pos­al faced both cul­tur­al and polit­ic­al hurdles. But he figured he could bring some fel­low Re­pub­lic­ans around by em­phas­iz­ing its fisc­al po­ten­tial—those Medi­caid sav­ings—and the fact that the pro­gram was re­du­cing abor­tions. “I run a lot of le­gis­la­tion,” he says, “and, policy-wise, this may be the best piece of le­gis­la­tion I’ve ever worked on.” He be­lieves it could be a power­ful mod­el for oth­er states to fol­low. But first, he and his co­spon­sor would have to con­vince skep­tic­al con­ser­vat­ives—and a few wary lib­er­als to boot—that they should keep Col­or­ado’s pi­on­eer­ing pro­gram from grind­ing to a halt.

AMER­ICA’s LARGE-SCALE re­jec­tion of long-act­ing birth con­trol can be traced back to a single, dis­astrous IUD. The devices first hit the U.S. mar­ket in the mid-‘60s, and by the early ‘70s, al­most 10 per­cent of con­tra­cept­ive users had them—a high­er pro­por­tion than today. Then the most pop­u­lar IUD, the Dalkon Shield, was pulled from the mar­ket in 1974, after it was linked to a high risk of pel­vic in­flam­mat­ory dis­ease—a ser­i­ous con­di­tion that can lead to in­fer­til­ity, or even prove fatal—and to the deaths of 18 wo­men. About 200,000 wo­men filed claims of in­jury, and the en­su­ing law­suits bank­rup­ted the IUD’s man­u­fac­turer, the A.”ŠH. Robins Com­pany. Com­pet­it­ors swiftly stopped pro­duc­tion of sim­il­ar devices, fear­ing they’d be next. “The in­terest in the IUD plummeted,” says Jeff Peipert, a clin­ic­al re­search­er in ob­stet­rics and gyneco­logy at Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity in St. Louis, “be­cause of what I think of as one bad act­or.” (Im­plants also gained a sketchy repu­ta­tion in the early 1990s, when an early mod­el, Nor­plant, proved dif­fi­cult to re­move and rid­den with side ef­fects; more law­suits and an­oth­er round of fright­en­ing head­lines en­sued.)

(RE­LATED: In­surers Cov­er Some Con­tra­cept­ives, But Not All)

Throughout the 1980s and ‘90s, most Amer­ic­an med­ic­al stu­dents nev­er learned to in­sert an IUD—even as a host of stud­ies from European coun­tries, where IUDs had re­mained pop­u­lar, sug­ges­ted the new mod­els were safe. If doc­tors did re­com­mend them for wo­men, it was for a nar­row cat­egory who were “older, mar­ried, with sev­er­al chil­dren,” says Eve Es­pey, chair of the Long-Act­ing Re­vers­ible Con­tra­cep­tion Work Group at the Amer­ic­an Col­lege of Ob­stet­ri­cians and Gyneco­lo­gists. In part, pro­viders couldn’t shake their fear, after the Dalkon Shield, of leav­ing young wo­men in­fer­tile—and of in­vit­ing law­suits as a con­sequence.

State Rep. Don Coram, a self-de­scribed “red­neck Re­pub­lic­an,” has be­come Col­or­ado’s most un­likely cham­pi­on of long-act­ing con­tra­cep­tion (Kath­ryn Scott Osler/The Den­ver Post)

But in the mid-2000s, med­ic­al re­search­ers star­ted to ask why Amer­ica’s stance on long-act­ing birth con­trol hadn’t changed with the times. “I think that re­search­ers and pub­lic-health prac­ti­tion­ers in­ter­ested in con­tra­cep­tion be­came in­creas­ingly aware of data that sup­por­ted the safety and ef­fect­ive­ness of IUDs,” Es­pey says. “With a meth­od that had been used a lot in the past and was used so much in oth­er coun­tries, at some point it be­came in­ev­it­able that people would say, ‘Why not in the U.S.?‘“Š”

As the med­ic­al com­munity began to em­brace im­plants and IUDs, the ques­tion be­came how to make them ac­cess­ible and af­ford­able for the young wo­men who have more un­planned preg­nan­cies and thus could be­ne­fit the most. They of­ten hadn’t heard of long-act­ing birth con­trol, or couldn’t af­ford it if they had. Many clin­ics found the price too high as well. (Ima­gine stock­ing your shelves with ten $900 devices and only us­ing, and be­ing re­im­bursed for, half.) These were big obstacles—but a land­mark study in St. Louis vin­dic­ated many re­search­ers’ hopes when it showed that, if those road­b­locks were re­moved, long-act­ing birth con­trol could quickly lower the teen birth rate. From 2007 to 2011, the Con­tra­cept­ive Choice Pro­ject, fun­ded by an an­onym­ous found­a­tion and run by Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity in St. Louis, offered groups of wo­men and teens any con­tra­cept­ive, free of charge. Where­as wo­men have typ­ic­ally been offered the cheap­er, less-ef­fect­ive meth­ods first, the St. Louis pro­ject counseled pa­tients on their op­tions by start­ing with the most ef­fect­ive and list­ing oth­ers in or­der of re­li­ab­il­ity. Three-quar­ters of par­ti­cipants chose IUDs and im­plants. A year later, those who had op­ted in­stead for the pill, patch, or NuvaR­ing had got­ten preg­nant at a rate 20 times high­er than those us­ing long-act­ing birth con­trol.

While the St. Louis pro­ject was un­der­way, the Susan Thompson Buf­fett Found­a­tion launched its more wide-scale ex­per­i­ment in Col­or­ado and Iowa. In ad­di­tion to fund­ing col­lege schol­ar­ships and oth­er edu­ca­tion pro­grams, the found­a­tion has a his­tory of sup­port­ing ac­cess to abor­tion. Ac­cord­ing to IRS fil­ings, it has giv­en mil­lions to Planned Par­ent­hood and the Na­tion­al Abor­tion Fed­er­a­tion Hot­line Fund, among oth­ers. (The found­a­tion does not speak to the press about its re­pro­duct­ive work and would not com­ment for this art­icle, though I did speak with lead­ers of the Iowa and Col­or­ado ef­forts.) In 2006, Buf­fett hired a lead­ing fam­ily-plan­ning ex­pert and tasked her with shift­ing its fo­cus from abor­tion ac­cess to abor­tion pre­ven­tion. The ini­ti­at­ive would be cent­ral to that ef­fort.

(RE­LATED: Wo­men Aren’t the Prob­lem in Polit­ics)

The ul­ti­mate goal, along with cut­ting the rate of un­wanted preg­nan­cies and abor­tions, was to use Col­or­ado and Iowa as clas­sic “labor­at­or­ies of demo­cracy”: If the pro­grams worked, they could be rep­lic­ated in oth­er states or on a na­tion­al level. The found­a­tion looked for re­l­at­ively small states where its re­sources could have the greatest pos­sible im­pact, says Sally Ped­er­son, who led the Iowa Ini­ti­at­ive to Re­duce Un­in­ten­ded Preg­nancy. It tar­geted states that were un­der Demo­crat­ic con­trol—which, at the time, Col­or­ado and Iowa were—to in­crease the chances of the pro­gram even­tu­ally win­ning state fund­ing. It also wanted each pi­lot pro­gram to be in “a middle-of-the-road state—phys­ic­ally and polit­ic­ally,” says El­len Mar­shall of the con­sult­ing firm Good Works Group, whom the found­a­tion hired to over­see the Col­or­ado ini­ti­at­ive. If it could work in Iowa and Col­or­ado, the think­ing was, it could work any­where.

The Buf­fett ini­ti­at­ive launched in Iowa in 2007 and in Col­or­ado two years later. Eliza­beth Romer, dir­ect­or of the Fam­ily Plan­ning Clin­ic at Chil­dren’s Hos­pit­al Col­or­ado, de­scribes the be­gin­ning of the pro­gram as an elec­tri­fy­ing con­flu­ence: Just as she and oth­er Col­or­ado pro­viders star­ted to wish that they could af­ford to ex­per­i­ment with the pos­sib­il­it­ies of IUDs and im­plants, “here was an op­por­tun­ity with fund­ing. What the ini­ti­at­ive gave us was the op­por­tun­ity to dream big.”

The first step was chan­ging the way long-act­ing birth con­trol was viewed. The ini­ti­at­ive edu­cated pro­viders about the be­ne­fits of IUDs and im­plants, and trained the ones who didn’t know how to in­sert the devices. Pub­lic-re­la­tions cam­paigns en­cour­aged wo­men to think anew about birth con­trol and drew them in­to clin­ics where they could learn about the long-term meth­ods they could now get for free. The mas­cot of Iowa’s “Avoid the Stork” cam­paign—a shaggy white Big Bird fig­ure with yel­low eyes and a baby doll buckled to his front—went to uni­versity cam­puses, NAS­CAR races, and county fairs to hand out the ini­ti­at­ive’s branded lip balm along with in­form­a­tion about con­tra­cept­ives. In Col­or­ado, city buses bore ads that read, “Safe is sexy,” and “Do you have a rain­coat for your sail­or?”

(RE­LATED: Pho­tos: The Real “Rosie the Riv­eter” Wo­men)

Demo­crat­ic law­maker KC Beck­er, who’s fight­ing for state fund­ing to pro­mote long-term birth con­trol, sports ear­rings fash­ioned after an IUD. (Craig F. Walk­er / The Den­ver Post)

Once the word star­ted to spread, in­terest seemed to speed up ex­po­nen­tially; at the clin­ics I vis­ited in the Den­ver sub­urbs of Au­rora and Long­mont, health pro­viders had stor­ies of teen­agers leav­ing with long-term birth con­trol, then com­ing back a week later, their friends in tow. The res­ults were more dra­mat­ic than any­one had an­ti­cip­ated. Ac­cord­ing to num­bers provided by the Col­or­ado Pub­lic Health and En­vir­on­ment De­part­ment, use of long-act­ing birth con­trol by wo­men at ini­ti­at­ive-af­fil­i­ated clin­ics was twice what the de­part­ment had hoped for.

As of Ju­ly 2014, the ini­ti­at­ive had provided more than 30,000 IUDs and im­plants to Col­or­ado wo­men. Last sum­mer, when Gov. Hick­en­loop­er an­nounced the 40 per­cent drop in the teen birth rate, he also said the abor­tion rate among teens had gone down by 35 per­cent since 2009. (The state at­trib­utes about three-quar­ters of that de­cline to the pro­gram; the na­tion­al teen preg­nancy rate has also been fall­ing, though much more slowly.) The ripple ef­fects of the ini­ti­at­ive have also been im­press­ive. Col­or­ado’s Wo­men, In­fants, and Chil­dren pro­gram, which gives food and oth­er ser­vices to low-in­come wo­men with young chil­dren, saw a 23 per­cent re­duc­tion in its in­fant case­load from 2008 to 2013. The gov­ernor’s of­fice es­tim­ates that, all in all, the ini­ti­at­ive saved the state $42.5 mil­lion in 2010 alone.

(RE­LATED: The “War on Wo­men” Isn’t Over Yet)

Iowa saw sim­il­ar out­comes: Re­search­ers found that long-act­ing birth-con­trol us­age more than tripled statewide over the course of the pro­gram, and the abor­tion rate de­creased by 25 per­cent. But by the time the state’s ini­ti­at­ive reached the end of its fund­ing in 2012, Iowa had tilted Re­pub­lic­an. Pro­ponents didn’t even try to get fund­ing from the state le­gis­lature; the pro­gram quietly fol­ded up shop. “When the fund­ing went away, it was very dif­fi­cult for the pro­viders to ad­just,” says Penny Dickey of Iowa’s Planned Par­ent­hood of the Heart­land. “We knew it wasn’t forever, but it was really dif­fi­cult to have to go back to the old way of man­aging the re­sources,” with an em­phas­is on cheap­er, short­er-term birth con­trol.

That left Col­or­ado as the sole hope for cre­at­ing a state-fun­ded mod­el that oth­er states could rep­lic­ate. “I think a lot of people are look­ing at wheth­er we’re go­ing to be able to get the pending le­gis­la­tion through our le­gis­lature,” says Stephanie Teal, fam­ily-plan­ning dir­ect­or for the Col­or­ado Pub­lic Health and En­vir­on­ment De­part­ment. “Here we are in Col­or­ado, this is our data, and if we’re un­able to get our le­gis­lature to con­tin­ue something like this, where we already have in­fra­struc­ture in place and we’ve proved the be­ne­fit, it’s go­ing to make it that much harder for oth­er states to be in­ter­ested.”

THE COL­OR­ADO STATE HOUSE is a mess. It’s after 7 p.m. on a Wed­nes­day in early April, and the House is still de­bat­ing amend­ments to its an­nu­al budget, aptly known as the “Long Bill.” The cham­ber is littered with the de­trit­us of a mara­thon day: An enorm­ous, mostly empty tub of Red Vines on a desk par­tially ob­scures my line of sight from the lobby; ther­moses and wa­ter bottles line every desk; and a lone crutch leans pre­cari­ously in­to the cent­ral aisle, propped against one of the forest-green chairs. At the po­di­um, Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Patrick Neville is ar­guing against Don Coram and KC Beck­er’s pro­pos­al to keep the long-term birth-con­trol pro­gram op­er­at­ing. But as he ges­tures to the pro­ject­or screen be­hind him, ex­pect­ing to see an amend­ment he wrote to block fund­ing for IUDs and im­plants, he finds in­stead a meas­ure to com­bat cy­ber­bul­ly­ing. A flurry of activ­ity fol­lows as aides try to find the cor­rect slide. “Let’s let the con­fu­sion be­gin,” in­tones the House speak­er pro tem­pore.

Like IUDs, im­plants gained a bad repu­ta­tion from an early mod­el’s highly pub­li­cized fail­ure. (GARO/phanie/Phanie Sarl/Cor­bis)

When the de­bate fi­nally com­mences in earn­est, mor­al and re­li­gious ar­gu­ments are scarcer than the ini­ti­at­ive’s pro­ponents had ex­pec­ted. Re­pub­lic­an House mem­bers have settled on a more prag­mat­ic line of at­tack: The fund­ing, they ar­gue, is un­ne­ces­sary be­cause the Af­ford­able Care Act re­quires in­surers to cov­er all forms of con­tra­cep­tion—IUDs and im­plants in­cluded. “We don’t need to spend this money on the same pro­gram, which is avail­able oth­er­wise,” Rep. Janak Joshi, a Re­pub­lic­an from so­cially con­ser­vat­ive Col­or­ado Springs, as­serts. “We can use this money for some bet­ter use—maybe edu­ca­tion, maybe roads, but not du­plic­at­ing the same ser­vices which are avail­able.”

In the Sen­ate, the only Re­pub­lic­an in the le­gis­lature to vote for Col­or­ado’s Medi­caid ex­pan­sion in 2013, Coram’s good friend Larry Crowder, had told me earli­er that this line of ar­gu­ment had led him to op­pose the pro­pos­al—though at first it seemed he might be the lone GOP sen­at­or to back it. “Nobody wants less un­in­ten­ded preg­nancy more than I do,” he said, “but am I will­ing to go in and ask tax­pay­ers to fund this? I think there’s ad­equate fund­ing out there.”

Pro­ponents counter that while it’s true in the­ory that all con­tra­cept­ives are covered un­der the Af­ford­able Care Act, in prac­tice, many in­surers are dis­cour­aging use of the long-term meth­ods by twist­ing Medi­caid rules that are sup­posed to pro­tect con­sumers. The gov­ern­ment al­lows in­surers to prac­tice what it calls “reas­on­able med­ic­al man­age­ment” to keep costs down, ex­plains Susan Berke Fo­gel of the Na­tion­al Health Law Pro­gram. This could mean cov­er­ing a cheap­er gen­er­ic in­stead of a pricey name-brand drug, or fol­low­ing what’s known as “step ther­apy,” which means pro­viders try less-ex­pens­ive treat­ments first and only re­sort to more ex­pens­ive ones when the cheap­er al­tern­at­ive fails. (This is sup­posed to keep you from hav­ing to, for ex­ample, shell out for a PET scan every time you have a head­ache. Ap­plied to birth con­trol, however, it means that some wo­men have to show that a less-ex­pens­ive op­tion, like the pill, has failed to pre­vent a preg­nancy or has made them sick be­fore the in­surer will cov­er an im­plant or IUD.)

(RE­LATED: Want More Wo­men in Of­fice? Look to Re­pub­lic­ans.)

Fo­gel says plans are tak­ing these guidelines too far in the case of long-act­ing birth con­trol. There are no gen­er­ic ver­sions of the devices on the mar­ket, she points out, and dif­fer­ent birth-con­trol meth­ods (some re­l­at­ively cheap, some not) work best for dif­fer­ent wo­men and life­styles. But that hasn’t stopped some in­sur­ance com­pan­ies from “group­ing” birth con­trols (so they might of­fer just one long-act­ing meth­od, and not the one you want), mak­ing doc­tors’ of­fices go through an ar­du­ous pre­approv­al pro­cess, or re­quir­ing a ver­sion of “step ther­apy” to prove that a long-term device is needed. (Clare Krus­ing, the com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or for the trade or­gan­iz­a­tion Amer­ica’s Health In­sur­ance Plans, says the in­surers’ rules are both leg­al and good for con­sumers. The Af­ford­able Care Act may cov­er con­tra­cep­tion, but “that be­ne­fit still has an im­pact on the over­all cost of cov­er­age” and the premi­ums people pay, she wrote in an email. “If plans were re­quired to cov­er every single birth con­trol op­tion, the costs to con­sumers would be sig­ni­fic­ant. … It’s why the guid­ance stresses the use of plans’ med­ic­al man­age­ment tools, so con­sumers have af­ford­able choices.”)

But there’s an­oth­er factor, pro­ponents of the Col­or­ado ini­ti­at­ive say: Teen­agers are the people least likely to get IUDs and im­plants through in­sur­ance. At Chil­dren’s Hos­pit­al Col­or­ado, Romer says, around half of the teens who come in for birth con­trol haven’t told a par­ent they’re there. No par­ent of­ten means no in­sur­ance—even if the fam­ily has it, the daugh­ter can’t use it without mom or dad find­ing out.

As the House de­bate makes clear, at least some of the law­makers ar­guing that fund­ing birth con­trol is re­dund­ant have deep­er ob­jec­tions. Re­pub­lic­an Rep. Kath­leen Conti, for in­stance, leads with the fin­an­cial ar­gu­ment: “We’re not de­fund­ing birth con­trol. We’re de­fund­ing the Ca­dillac of birth con­trols. Something that on av­er­age is about a $900”… ” She pauses and grasps at the air with her right hand, search­ing for the right word. “Equip­ment”… pro­ced­ure”…” But that’s not what she’s really come to the po­di­um to talk about. “I hear the stor­ies of young girls who are en­gaged, very pre­ma­turely, in sexu­al activ­ity, and I see firsthand the dev­ast­a­tion that hap­pens to them,” Conti says, wav­ing her hand with rising ur­gency. “I’m not ac­cred­it­ing this dir­ectly to this pro­gram, but I’m say­ing, while we may be pre­vent­ing an un­wanted preg­nancy, at the same time, what are the emo­tion­al con­sequences that could be com­ing up on the oth­er side?”

(RE­LATED: Are Abor­tions Re­vers­ible?)

Coram tut-tuts at this line of ar­gu­ment. “That word, ‘sex,‘“Š” he says. “It seems to scare people.” His co­spon­sor, wear­ing sparkly ear­rings in the shape of IUDs, steps up to the mic to re­spond to Conti. “I think that there are lots of stresses that teens have in their lives,” Beck­er says. “I think that hav­ing an un­wanted preg­nancy is ab­so­lutely a stress that can lead to de­pres­sion. When you have a child when you’re not ready, it can be the hard­est, hard­est time in your life. Even when you are ready to have a child”—she gives a small laugh—”it can be one of the hard­est things you ever go through. So the more that we en­able “… girls to stay in school longer, to be self-suf­fi­cient, to not end up on wel­fare—the bet­ter their lives are go­ing to be, and the bet­ter the people of Col­or­ado are go­ing to be.”

Later that night, the House votes to in­clude the ini­ti­at­ive’s fund­ing in the Long Bill. But Coram and Beck­er know the battle has only just be­gun. The ma­jor­ity-Re­pub­lic­an Sen­ate has already killed the same amend­ment, with zero Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors sup­port­ing it. After the House vote, the amend­ment would head in­to a Joint Budget Com­mit­tee con­fer­ence the fol­low­ing week, where it would need a vote from one of the three Re­pub­lic­ans to pass; it would get none.

With three weeks left in this year’s ses­sion, and the clock run­ning out on the Buf­fett Found­a­tion’s fund­ing, Coram and Beck­er de­cided to try a stand-alone bill for the ini­ti­at­ive; they knew it would be harder to pass than the budget amend­ment, but it was their only shot. The meas­ure has cleared the House but faces long odds in the Sen­ate. The pro­spects for con­tinu­ing Col­or­ado’s long-term birth-con­trol pro­ject next year, as Coram ad­mits, are vir­tu­ally nil.

The morn­ing after the budget de­bate, I ask Coram what he thinks it would take to change the polit­ics of long-act­ing birth con­trol. “Spine!” he barks. He es­tim­ates that al­most half of his Re­pub­lic­an col­leagues sup­port the pro­gram, but only three of 48 are openly for it. Again and again, he says, they told him: “”Š’I would love to sup­port this bill, but I’m afraid of a primary from a group that’s in op­pos­i­tion.‘“Š” In oth­er words, he says, “It’s per­fect policy to do it, but it could be polit­ic­ally dam­aging to do it.’”

He’s not giv­ing up, though. “At­ti­tudes change,” Coram told me over the phone last week, as he drove west from Den­ver to­ward Mon­trose. “Ten years ago, if you wanted to talk about same-sex mar­riage, that cer­tainly did not have any sup­port. “… I think without a doubt this will be one of those things. Just be­cause this bill is go­ing to die doesn’t mean the con­ver­sa­tion is over.” 

What We're Following See More »
Trump Delays Tariffs on Japanese and European Cars
2 days ago
Trump Unveils New Immigration Proposal
2 days ago
Trump Jr. Agrees to Testify in the Senate
4 days ago

"Donald Trump Jr. has struck a last minute deal to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee ... Trump Jr. will sit for an interview some time in mid-June for between two and four hours, with the scope limited to five or six topics pertaining to his communications with Russian officials. This will be the last time Trump Jr. has to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the terms of the deal."

China Hits Back with Tariffs on $60B in U.S. Goods
5 days ago
China Raising Tariffs
6 days ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.