We are not opposed to all insurance companies covering birth control in theory, but our concern comes from increased government intervention where it might not be necessary.

For one, churches and other organizations that are opposed to birth control might not need birth control as part of their insurance programs. Whether they are against it for moral reasons or simply just not in a position to take advantage of it, these organizations might be put in an ethical dilemma if this legislation is adopted.

Secondly, we realize that a large percentage of women who use birth control might do so not to prevent pregnancy, but also to treat serious forms of acne and other hormone-related issues. But in a vast majority of these cases, birth control is not necessary for human survival.

Although it’s admirable Planned Parenthood and Democratic legislators want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions, not to mention increase women’s overall health with covered Pap tests and a sex education overhaul, we can’t help but wonder why these things get more attention than everything else.

Take antidepressants, for instance. Antidepressants can be likened to birth control in that they are not necessary for survival, yet vastly improve the quality of life for millions of Americans. However, no one seems to be talking about whether these drugs also should be included in all insurance policies. Undoubtedly they are included in many, but is similar action being taken to make a statewide mandate?

Perhaps the antidepressant lobby lacks Planned Parenthood’s abundant funding, or simply lacks the moral component that makes birth control such a hot-button issue in our country. Regardless, it brings up the question of why more prescriptions that help improve (but are not necessary for) the quality of life are or are not included in health care policies.

Drugs such as Viagra are included in some policies, while birth control is not. This is problematic, but again brings up the question of whether the government needs to make certain prescription coverage mandatory.

If passed, this plan likely would do many good things for the women of our state. However, we as students and Americans always should remain concerned about the government overstepping its bounds, even if it does so with the best of intentions. We are not necessarily claiming that this legislation constitutes an overstepping of bounds, but it has the potential to set a dangerous precedent.

The simple fact that this is a debated issue only should serve to remind all of us that our nation’s health care system is highly flawed, if not broken altogether. We are in favor of the government seeking to provide health needs for women, but it should only seek to intervene when such action is essential.