In response to the letter "Bill about birth control is big disappointment" Dec. 3, I am completely embarrassed to find out that I attend the same school as someone who claims that the pill could never be necessary for a woman's health. The birth control pill serves as a contraceptive, but its benefits go beyond that. It leads to lighter periods, less severe cramps and clearer faces. It has also been linked to a reduction in the chance of developing pelvic inflammatory disease, some types of cancer and ectopic pregnancies.
While these benefits don't necessarily mean the pill is essential, my story should be taken into consideration. Five years ago, I was sent to the emergency room with a hormonal imbalance that almost cost me my life.
Thanks to the pill, I'm still alive today. After taking high doses for a few days to fix the original problem, my gynecologist strongly recommended that I remain on the pill to prevent a reoccurrence.
As a result, the idea that the pill is just for birth control seems inaccurate. I'm fortunate enough to have insurance to cover the cost, but the same cannot be said for other women. For the sake of lighter, more tolerable periods, reduced risks of cancer and potentially the lives of other women with hormonal problems, the pill should be reasonably priced.
Padraic Kenney may have a firm grasp on the concept of supply and demand, but I strongly suggest he research pharmacology before making anymore outrageously false claims.
Kim Feeney
junior-nutrition
