The House Public Health Committee gave a “Do Pass” motion to a bill last week that bans the use of public funds for the morning after pill by Medicaid recipients. Given that more than half of births in Oklahoma are to women on Medicaid, how is this cost effective? I know that the fervently anti-abortion activists believe the morning after pill is the same as an abortion. Since the morning after pill prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg in a woman's uterus, this is hardly an abortion. But rationality or science rarely intrudes on the anti-abortion argument. Still, you'd think if the Legislature were interested in protecting public funds, they'd find the expenditure of a few dollars for the occasional morning after pill more cost effective than paying for an unwanted pregnancy, hospital birth and support for the baby.
Dale Wares, Norman