The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

The Student News Site of Colorado State University

The Rocky Mountain Collegian

Print Edition
Letter to the editor submissions
Have a strong opinion about something happening on campus or in Fort Collins? Want to respond to an article written on The Collegian? Write a Letter to the Editor by following the guidelines here.
Follow Us on Twitter
African American female student studying from home during lockdown
Pediatric NP Online Programs: Alleviating Gaps in Colorado's Healthcare System
April 10, 2024

In Colorado's intricate healthcare sector, the provision of specialized care to its pediatric population remains a challenge. Pediatric Nurse...

Colorado birth control program funding should be taken locally to voters

Sean Kennedy
Sean Kennedy

As much as some politicians may not like it, people are going to have sex whenever they want. However, that shouldn’t stop the voting public from supporting funding for important, public sexual health programs.

In recent months, the Colorado Family Planning Initiative – a program that provides long-acting birth control and contraceptives such as IUDs and implants to low-income women around the state – has become a hot political topic as lawmakers have sought to secure state financing for the program, whose primary source of public funding ran out earlier this year. However, state money for the program no longer appears to be an option as the conservative-dominated state Senate opposes funding for ideological reasons.


While the opposition to funding a contraceptive program is understandable in a state as politically diverse as Colorado, this program is too important to women’s health to let fall to the wayside. Funding for the CFPI should be implemented by local voters to secure financing from the communities that will take advantage of these vital health services.

Regardless of any personal objections to contraceptive services being available to women, the Family Planning Initiative makes fiscal sense for the state of Colorado overall, as well as having a proven track record of effectively reducing teen pregnancies and abortions in the state. According to the Denver Post, state officials estimated that nearly $80 million in Medicaid costs were averted during the initiative’s first three years. The CFPI is also believed to have contributed in part to the overall 48 percent decrease in teen pregnancies and abortions statewide since 2009. In addition to combating a legitimate public health concern, this initiative saves our communities money in the long run, and it deserves stable, long-term funding from localities that support the availability of modern public health services to women.

Since state funding for this program appears unrealistic in the current political climate, municipal funding for the CFPI is essential to maintaining the quality of services and medical devices it provides to low-income women across Colorado. The long-acting contraceptive devices the program provides normally cost between $500 and $1,000, and while private funding for the program is ideal, it is not a realistic option to sustain the program long-term. For its first seven years, the CFPI has run on $27 million in grants from a private foundation, and recently, $2 million in emergency funding from public foundations as state support has deteriorated. This program needs the financial clout that backing at a municipal level can offer to continue providing the same level of support to public health institutions.

Taking the issue of funding this important public health initiative to voters on a local level is the most realistic and fair option to addressing female sexual health in the long run. While myself and other like-minded individuals believe that a person’s income should not be a barrier to her enjoying a healthy sexual lifestyle of her choosing, there are plenty in our diverse state that may disagree. Addressing this issue on a local level will help keep long-acting contraception affordable for low-income residents for the communities that support access to modern sexual health care options for women.

If the Ashley Madison fiasco has taught us anything, it’s that consenting adults are going to have sex whenever and with whoever they want. It’s up to us to promote and support sexual health in our communities, and that starts with keeping protection affordable for all.

Collegian Senior Columnist Sean Kennedy can be reached at or on Twitter @seanskenn

View Comments (8)
More to Discover

Comments (8)

When commenting on The Collegian’s website, please be respectful of others and their viewpoints. The Collegian reviews all comments and reserves the right to reject comments from the website. Comments including any of the following will not be accepted. 1. No language attacking a protected group, including slurs or other profane language directed at a person’s race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social class, age, physical or mental disability, ethnicity or nationality. 2. No factually inaccurate information, including misleading statements or incorrect data. 3. No abusive language or harassment of Collegian writers, editors or other commenters. 4. No threatening language that includes but is not limited to language inciting violence against an individual or group of people. 5. No links.
All The Rocky Mountain Collegian Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • A

    aceSep 1, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    How are condoms not affordable? How are basic oral contraceptives not affordable? Tell me the monthly price and then tell me you can’t afford it when you can afford energy drinks, coffee, and alcohol. Besides, abstinence is free.

    If someone has a medical problem with incontinence, for example, Depends and similar are not covered by private health insurance. Adult diapers are over $100/mo. They are covered by Medicaid (for the poorest), but not by Medicare (which many disabled and seniors use). Incontinence products for those who need them are a medically necessary cost and far more expensive than affordable birth control. Sex is something entirely optional, not medically necessary.

    It’s arguably more “medically necessary” to your future health in the long run that you graduate college and make at least a middle class income so you can eat healthy food and live in safe housing.

    The above is just one example of why your argument fails.

    • R

      RobSep 2, 2015 at 8:51 am

      “Besides, abstinence is free.” – Yep, that oughta do it.