Hooray for Viagra, the wonder anti-impotence drug that has nearly 300,000 men popping the little blue pills, and many more who undoubtedly will consider taking them in the future.

The drug’s debut and overwhelming response from our sex-obsessed society has been the talk of the town lately, as everything relevant to sex always is.

Part of what I like about Viagra is that it’s a step forward in sexual liberation — fewer people are shying away from asking their doctors about sexual/reproductive problems and remedies.

Unfortunately, though, the drug also represents a bias that’s making women’s blood boil across the United States: the fact that insurance groups are considering coverage of Viagra as a prescription drug, while prescribed birth control pills are getting the shaft (no pun intended).

Currently, 97 percent of all large group plans pay for prescription drugs, while just a third compensate contraceptives, according to the Boston Globe.

In fact, of those 300,000 men who find Viagra a source of relief, half are covered at least in part for the expense.

In a society that condones — no, advances is a better word — sexual activity, doesn’t it make sense to simplify the process of preventing unexpected pregnancy?

Doctors’ and women’s groups are going nuts with this, spouting accusations of sex discrimination. Sure, impotence is a medical problem and preventing pregnancy is not. But both have to do with having sex, and unwanted pregnancy is more of a problem these days than impotence.

Women also pay 68 percent more for medical expenses than men. The difference lies in reproductive costs, including annual exams and Pap tests, which locate reproductive cancers. In fact, only in recent years has women’s health care been taken seriously as a medical necessity.

Contraception should be included in that health care because last time I checked, rates of sexual activity haven’t slowed down. And birth control may not be a medical necessity, but it is a necessity.

Granted, birth-control coverage is available, but many employers deny the benefit because it hits them in the pocketbook, a report by the Associated Press states.

What message does this bring to sexually-active women who struggle financially? If they can’t come up with enough to pay the bills, they certainly can’t afford birth control. And the financially-challenged aren’t going to quit having sex.

Also, one study found that funding 10 Viagra pills per month would cost about $100 million a year, which is nearly twice what some insurance companies pay for anti-HIV drugs.

However, women can take comfort in knowing that societal support for contraceptive coverage is profound; a Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed that three-fourths of Americans advocate insurance coverage for contraceptives. Meanwhile, only half of those who answered the poll agreed that coverage should include Viagra.

Insurance companies and employers may ignore women’s health advocates pushing for change, but luckily, a movement toward federal legislation is in the works.

The Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act could get a hearing this election year. In addition, states such as California, Alaska and Connecticut are supporting the movement.

I’m all for sexual liberation, and I’m sure the men whose sex drives have been recharged a’ la Viagra can say the same. The walls of impotence are coming down, so let’s prepare for it.

But let’s not discriminate against women’s health in the process.

---

Staci Hupp is a junior in journalism and mass communication from Grimes. She is the editor in chief of the Daily.