Lauren Boebert suggests she had her third son because birth control was too expensive
Rep. Lauren Boebert revealed at a committee hearing on Tuesday that she was pregnant with her third son after failing to adopt her birth control because it was “too expensive.”
The House Oversight Committee hearing, focused on prescription drug prices, focused on pharmacy benefit administrators — middlemen who go between health insurers and prescription drug manufacturers.
‘I actually have a nice story, my staff will probably talk to me about it later.
But once I left a prescription at a pharmacy. I went to get birth control,” Boebert, R-Colo., told the hearing.
Rep. Lauren Boebert revealed at a committee hearing on Tuesday that she was pregnant with her third son after failing to adopt her birth control because it was ‘too expensive’
“I stood there at the counter and went to pay. And the price was very very high.
I said, Wow, is this a three, six month prescription?
‘No madam. This is one month.’ And I said it’s cheaper to have a kid and I left it there and now I have my third son, Kaydon Boebert.”
“And so I’m actually — it was, it turned out to be a really great thing, but I experience that personally in difficult times.”
Boebert’s son Kaydon is 13 – she also has Tyler, 18, Brody, 16, and Roman, 10.
Earlier this year, Boebert revealed that her 18-year-old was going to be a father because his girlfriend was pregnant.
Boebert and husband Jayson recently filed for divorce, with Boebert saying her husband “never asked” to be in the spotlight.
Without insurance, birth control pills can cost between $20 and $50 per month. With insurance, the cost can be as low as $0.
There was bipartisan bashing of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) at the hearing.
Lauren Boebert, pictured with her husband and four sons
Boebert’s third son, Kaydon, 13, was conceived because she couldn’t afford birth control, she revealed on Tuesday
“List prices for prescription drugs have gone through the roof, even as net prices have fallen. And despite this increase in healthcare costs, life expectancy has remained the same. That means someone benefits, and it’s not the patients. Look no further than PBMs, or pharmacy benefit administrators,” said Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., in the opening address at the hearing.
PBMs collect revenue by collecting administrative and service fees as well as by collecting rebates from drug manufacturers.
PPEs claim they work for patients and manufacturers are responsible for high drug costs. They say manufacturers charge high list prices and patent protection limits generic competition.
The discounts PPE gets from pharmaceutical companies are murky. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have called for legislation to increase oversight and transparency.
Governing in PBMs was initially proposed as part of the debt ceiling deal Speaker Kevin McCarthy and President Biden are working on, but that idea was suddenly taken off the table.
Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., said PPE should be eliminated outright. They make billions in revenue at the expense of patients and taxpayers.”
‘As a cancer patient, recently declared in remission – I rang my bell three weeks ago… what you’re telling me is just horrifying, the idea that you as an oncologist would prescribe one drug and be forced to take a different one’ due to to PPEs, said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md.
“This committee is rather partisan. I didn’t know we could agree on a lot of things. Today has revealed that miracles are still happening,” Representative Jasmine Crockett, a Texas Democrat, added.