<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Pill: Fiscal And Climate Hawks&nbsp;Agree?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[
<p>The Star-Ledger <a href="http://blog.nj.com/njv_editorial_page/2010/11/free_birth_control_is_the_righ.html" target="_self">argues</a> that insurance companies should be mandated to cover birth control:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Publicly funded contraception saves taxpayers about $4 for every $1 spent, by preventing nearly 2 million pregnancies and more than 800,000 abortions every year, according to the institute’s 2009 report.   The cost of the pill — maybe $10 to $50 a month — is middling when compared with the many thousands of dollars spent on prenatal and pediatric care for an unintended pregnancy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Lisa Hymas <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2010-11-11-what-climate-hawks-should-do-next-fight-for-free-birth-control" target="_self">rallies</a>&#0160;environmentalists:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It should be obvious why climate hawks need to care about making birth control widely accessible: fewer unwanted pregnancies will mean fewer unwanted births (not to mention fewer abortions), and, ultimately, <a href="http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2009/jul/family-planning-major-environmental-emphasis">fewer greenhouse gases</a>.&#0160;</p>
</blockquote>
]]></html></oembed>