Birth Control

Why Do We Force Employers to Cover the Full Cost of Birth Control but Not Food?

Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

|

Birth control pills
Bryancalabro / Wikipedia

Two in three Americans think employers should be required to provide birth control to employees through their health insurance plans, even if the business owner has religious objections to doing so, Pew Research Center reported last week.

This is troubling, in part because it shows people supporting a policy that we know violates others' constitutional rights. That's not just my opinion—this is a question the Supreme Court has already ruled on. In its Hobby Lobby decision, a majority of the justices found that at least one class of private employers could not be forced by the government to provide contraceptive coverage if the employer objects on religious grounds to doing so. The Court sat, heard arguments, deliberated, and ultimately concluded that the government doesn't have that authority—that the mandate as applied to closely held businesses was invalid.

Let's set aside the Supreme Court ruling for now, however. It's remarkable that so many people think all employers should be forced to cover their employees' contraception, no matter what, because it suggests that people think birth control is special such that no woman should ever have to pay for it herself. Recall that the government argued in Zubik that it has a compelling interest in ensuring that contraceptives are available at no cost whatsoever to the patient. If a woman has to so much as sign up for a separate insurance plan to get her free contraception, even if that insurance plan is also free, the government says her rights have been violated.

The requirement was the result of a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine (now the "National Academy of Medicine") that women have access to "the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods [and] sterilization procedures." The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) parlayed that into a mandate that most insurance plans cover all contraceptives, including the morning-after pill, without a co-pay or deductible.

But why is it necessary that contraceptives be not just widely available but also free and provided by a woman's employer? As Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, put it, "access to affordable contraception is essential to women's equality and economic security." Yet there are many things that are important—even crucial—to surviving and thriving the the modern world that people are nonetheless expected to pay for themselves.

Perhaps the most obvious is food.

Surely it's at least as true that "access to affordable sustenance is essential to people's equality and economic security." If I don't eat, I will die. So why shouldn't my employer be required to pay for my meals, above and beyond my base wages, the same way my employer is now required to cover my birth control? After all, I can't make it through the work day without at least one meal. But paying for lunches during the week can cost upwards of a hundred dollars a month; if I have special dietary needs, as many people do, the price tag could be several times more than that. This is a significant burden.

Moreoever, there's a preventive nature to eating: If I do it, I'm far less likely to need to be hospitalized for malnutrition or any of the other medical complications that can result from not having access to food. So why hasn't the federal government passed a law requiring all employers to at least cover one meal per workday?

Some employers do voluntarily subsidize people's meals. The American Enterprise Institute famously boasts that its employees get access to a "gourmet dining room, with a three-course lunch available daily at a nominal cost." It's one of the ways the D.C. think tank attracts top talent. Many big companies have cafeterias on the premises featuring low-cost meal options. Others do monthly staff breakfasts and the like. The place I worked before Reason kept the office kitchen stocked with a never-ending supply of peanut-butter-filled pretzel bites, which saved me on more than one occasion from needing to run out for an afternoon snack when I felt my blood sugar dipping.

Clearly, paying for your workers' food can have positive effects on morale and even productivity. Even still, most businesses opt not to worry about how their workers will manage their food intake, trusting that the people they've hired will make good choices for themselves.

Supporters of the HHS mandate really like to say that religious employers who choose not to offer contraception coverage are "imposing" their religion on their subordinates. But as I pointed out at U.S. News and World Report almost three years ago, that claim disintegrates when you replace "birth control" in the equation with "the meatball sub I had for lunch." If you'll permit me to quote myself:

Few would dare argue an employer who doesn't buy your lunch is relegating you to death by starvation, or even dictating to you what you can or cannot eat. Instead, we all intuitively recognize that workers are compensated in other ways, most notably, through wages. Those wages can be used to buy virtually anything an employee might desire, up to and including a meatball sandwich or a little packet of pills.

The point of this comparison is not to come out in favor of a right to lunch paid for by your employer. It's to highlight the absurdity of claiming that being expected to pay for something out of pocket is practically, legally, or morally equivalent to being "denied access" to that thing. We know this about food. We pretend not to know it, for some reason, when it comes to contraception.

You might be tempted to respond that the fact that lawmakers haven't required businesses to cover the cost of employees' food doesn't mean they couldn't if they wanted to. But the government isn't just arguing that it can force business owners to offer contraception coverage—it's arguing that it's compelled to do so. It has to make that claim, because otherwise the mandate would fail under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says that a law that substantially burdens a person's religion is only valid if (a) the law furthers a compelling government interest and (b) the law is the least restrictive means to doing so. And to return to where we started, on the question of "whether the challenged HHS regulations substantially burden the exercise of religion," the Supreme Court wrote in 2014, "we hold that they do."

So the government believes it has no choice but to force most employers to cover contraception. It apparently doesn't believe it has no choice but to do the same for food, despite the fact that consuming food is not considered objectionable in the eyes of any religions I'm aware of.

Like birth control, food is quite important to women's quality of life. It has the added benefit of also being good for men. You might even think it more important, since humans tend to die without it. Your chances of needing to be hospitalized are far greater when you don't have access to it, so ensuring access is arguably good for the health care system. Most people feel the need to consume it at some point during working hours, and there's reason to think that subsidizing it is not just good for employees but also has positive spillover benefits for the company. In other words, virtually any rationale for forcing businesses to pay for contraceptives would apply to food as well, and without many of the complicating factors.

So I ask again: By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free but not a compelling interest in making sure all people get food for free? Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

NEXT: Gary Johnson Polls 25 Percent in New Mexico, Hurricane Matthew Approaches Haiti, Kim Kardashian Robbed at Gunpoint in Paris: A.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I think the mentality is somewhat the same as Clinton’s argument that no one should spend more than 10% of their income on child care, while simultaneously arguing that there’s no problem with individual tax rates of more than 50%.

    1. Considering that many of these young women crying for free contraception will one day be done with living out their Sex and the City fantasies and want to make babies, employers should also foot 100% of the bill for IVF. For those who don’t want babies, it should fully subsidize that adoption and a lifetime supply of sweaters for pure bred mini dachsunds or Yorkies for these ladies.

      1. Not too many years ago you’d have rightly been accused of reductio ad absurdum. Sadly, no longer.

        1. Yes indeed. It remains an imperative that woman are not to be held responsible for their own choices in life. Thus, the perpetuation of the victim card can have a vague and open ended definition, all the while, a new boogey man can be created each week to blame anyone’s failures, somehow, on some guy.

          “access to individual responsibility and consequences is essential to women’s equality and economic security.”

          The more you handicap a group, the less their overall success. And the women line up and cheer like sheep.

          1. It remains an imperative that woman are not to be held responsible for their own choices in life.

            And yet, the alleged champions of women cannot see their own cognitive dissonance. Nor does it help when cheerleaders like the Center for Reproductive Rights claims (because such a group is necessary), couch this in terms of “access” as though nothing is accessible if not free.

            This is a bit like the voter ID question and minorities. When do women get mad about being treated as incompetent children?

            1. When do women get mad about being treated as incompetent children?

              – Do incompetent children ever get mad about being treated as incompetent children?

              1. Snap!

        2. Of course, reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid form of argument to show the weakness of another’s argument.

        3. Had to look this up to be sure, but reductio ad absurdum is a proper
          logical argument to show that something is fallacious by following its
          conclusions through. As long as you don’t wander off too far and create
          a straw man argument.

    2. please, don’t give those ass hats any new ideas, please

      1. I would have preferred if she had used quotation marks on the word “free”.

        It ain’t free.

    3. I’m making over $16k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. Then this work is for you… Go to website and click to Tech tab for more work details… http://tinyurl.com/glve3gm

  2. Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

    Arbys’s new slogan?

    1. I would like a free box lunch

      …..if you know what I mean

      1. Me too! I should be fully empowered to demand (and get) a free box lunch from any randomly selected passer-by!

        Even legalized hookers is NOT gonna be enuff; What about poor blokes who cannot afford “equal access” to the hookers? I say, we need? Equal access, Government-Almighty-assured, for all, to penis and pussy!!! Regardless of our age or ugliness! A GRANDE idea, MeThinks!!! As I put on my tin-foil hat, I foresee a future USA where you will have the right to have intercourse (social and/or sexual) with any passer-by that you demand it from, except, of course, the “public servants” who are too busy enforcing your rights, to have intercourse with you. AKA, they are too busy fucking with you, to let you fuck them! And we will have to sneak, under cover of darkness or fog or smog, from house to house, to have any kind of voluntary social or sexual intercourse, for fear of having “freedom” foisted upon us, if we walk about openly? Or maybe we put on a REALLY ugly, slime-dripping disguise, and take our chances? This LOVERLY idea brought to you for FREE by the Church of Scienfoology. To learn more about Scienfoology, please see http://www.churchofSQRLS.com ?

    2. Arby’s – we have a meats. And the treats.

    3. You know, a government takeover of the agriculture and food industries could be justified under the same “arguments” as government’s takeover of the healthcare industry. And it doesn’t seem all that far-fetched.

      “Of course you’re free. You have elections, don’t you? Just like Venezuela!”

  3. If I’m entitled to contraception for selling my labor, why shouldn’t I be entitled to it for selling a TV or lawncare services? When these people buy their daily latte from Starbucks, do they pay by signing the barista up with United Healthcare?

  4. What is toilet paper, chopped liver?

    1. Oh, My, Dog. That was a mental image I could have done without.

  5. Stephanie Slade thinks the government should pay for our food!

    1. Last time I checked, sustenance wasn’t a women’s health issue.

      1. Tell that to Jessica Davin, nee Weiland.

        http://shart-nado.tumblr.com/p…..a-survivor

        1. “I survived voluntarily starving myself.”

      2. Just free pills

  6. “WILL WORK FOR CONTRACEPTION”

  7. Because fatties, like unwanted babies, are a burden on society.

    1. Dammit, Eugene, are you trying to summon Eddie AND AddictionMyth?

  8. “Two in three Americans think employers should be required to provide birth control to employees through their health insurance plans…”

    I suspect that by “provide birth control” respondents assume that means free…people love them some free sh!t…

    1. nobody asked me about this!!!

  9. Now I am in the mood for a meatball sub.

    1. I could put some of my special sauce on those meatballs. You want to try my special sauce? I make it myself. It’s nice and creamy. So, want to try the sauce?

      1. Welp… first HyR erection. Thank you for that.

        1. So was your mom.

          1. Nobody expects ….

            Wait, wrong thread. Nevermind.

  10. I have friend who believes that the government should provide or at the very least force businesses to provide birth control for their employees. The rich thing about her is that she use the old tired line, “I wish that a bunch of white men didn’t have control over my reproductive rights.” Hearing this one too many times, I asked her, “So how is it that you hate old white men controlling your reproductive rights (if this was even the case), but have no problem with asking those very same white men, to pay or force someone to pay for your birth control?”

    1. reproductive rights

      What they mean is, fuck rights. They want to fuck with no repercussions. Which is fine, but pay for it yourself, ladies.

      1. There this great newspaper cartoon (I can’t exactly remember the which newspaper or blog it was for) that showed a woman yelling that men ought to not interfere with her reproductive rights and stay out of her bedroom. Anyway the drawing than shows a guy saying, Okay and leaving the bedroom. The woman yells for him to leave his wallet on the dresser because he ought to pay for her birth control.

      2. It might be relevant to reproductive rights in cultures where marital rape is acceptable, or where rape is very common. But in the US, pretty much any woman can decline to have sex at all if she wants to.

        So yeah, “fuck-rights”. I’m all for women being as sexually active as they want to be, but we don’t need to subsidize people’s recreational activities.

        1. Yet somehow condom’s don’t appear to be covered for me as a man. Feature, or bug?

          1. It’s big STD wielding its influence.

            1. You jest but Zika can be transmitted by sex, so… Big STD back and nursing on Uncle Sam’s moob.

          2. Feature, or bug?
            History.

            It’s been a long time since there were significant barriers to obtaining condoms, but there are still many barriers to women getting medication birth control, including state legislators attempting to put in new barriers.

            1. Dude, why do you keep going on about “barriers”?
              There are no barriers to women getting anything.

              Do you think having to get a prescription or having to pay for something are barriers?

          3. Absolute feature. Every time I raise this hypocrisy, blank stares.

    2. And then she walked away with a puss on her face?

    3. “Is it a reproductive right to get someone else to pay for it?”

  11. First reaction to just the headline; Oh, Christ, don’t give the silly bastards ideas!

    1. McDonalds likes the sound of it already.

      “I’m lovin’ mandated lunch!”

      1. In some states they already get to use BT cards at fast food joints I think.

        1. Meh. I’m more incensed that they are allowed to use those EBT cards for steak and lobster, which are most often bought so that the welfare recipient can trade them for cash. As a society we are moving away from cooking our own food.

          A place where I sometimes eat lunch has a special case labelled “EBT Sandwiches” with truly basic cold sandwiches. At first that bothered me, but then not so much once I thought about it.

      2. Pshht. It would be organically raised kale and quinoa, or some other prog-approved shit like that.

  12. Two in three Americans think employers should be required to provide birth control to employees through their health insurance plans…”

    My god are we doomed. I think a big reason for this is that people still, whether they even know it or will admit it, still buy into Eugenics. Very few people have a problem affording birth control and the country knows that. I think most of that 2/3rds who support free birth control support it because they don’t want the undesirables having kids and figure the undesirables won’t use birth control unless it is paid for by someone else.

    1. My liberal fiance even think the hysterics about birth control is bullshit. When the Sandra Fluke incident happened her feminist friends went into a frenzy. Later on she told me that the whole Fluke thing was bullshit because while birth control isn’t like paying for a candy bar, it’s well within reach for most women, especially her friends.

      1. I am going to guess that your fianc? also doesn’t believe in Eugenics and understands how evil it is. I bet her feminist friends, if you got them talking and they were honest, do.

        1. Progressives love minorities and the poor until they of course have to be around them.

          1. It’s mostly about class. ” Why do we let dumb poor people reproduce? These rednecks need to be stopped. Oh, some browns and blacks are affect? Well, omelettes and eggs.”

          2. That’s not true. They love poor people getting abortions.

          3. White flight was created by progressives to escape the minorities they were sending into crippling poverty.

        2. John, most women probably think Eugenics is a new exercise craze invented by someone named ‘Eugene’

          1. Or maybe a sequel / competitor to Dianetics, which is of course a book of philosophical musings by someone named Diane

          2. invented by someone named ‘Eugene’ in Eugene, OR

            …which is a fine town and probably did not deserve this.

          3. Yes. They have no idea what it means. So they don’t understand that is what they are supporting when they talk about how we need to stop having “unwanted children”.

    2. I think you may be right. Though I think that overpopulation worries and single motherhood worries (2/3 is going to include some more conservative people) also play into it.

      1. Overpopulation is another concern. But the concern over single mothers is just a branch of Eugenics if you ask me. It is saying that we don’t want undesirable kids, which includes kids from single mothers.

        1. It’s eugenics to want to discourage single motherhood? Well call me Hitler, because I’ll tell you right now that being raised by a single mother is the single greatest predictor for future criminality, chronic poverty, poor educational attainment and all around poor life choices. That’s not to say that birth control is the cure, ending single mother subsidies is the cure.

          1. Why do you hate womyn, FS?

            1. Have you ever met any womyn?

              1. Yes, unfortunately I have met a couple. They hang out on Feministing and Jezebel.

          2. You support whacking them based on the assumption that because of the circumstances of their birth, they are likely to be undesirable. That is Eugenics. It is just not based on race but environment.

            1. I support “whacking them”? I can’t wait to see how you explain that.

              1. Could be a monumental typo, I guess. I don’t know how “not subsidizing” translates to “whacking”.

                1. Could be John doing that thing where builds a strawman based on what he wants his opponents argument to be, then he’ll claim that you did say what he claims, then he disappears from the thread once you ask for specifics.

              2. I am not saying you support whacking them personally. I am saying once you buy into the idea that you can judge someone’s desirability of living based on the circumstances of their birth, you really have bought into Eugenics to some degree. People support giving poor people birth control because they figure if poor people breed, we will end up with more poor people. That is Eugenics effectively. You just want to achieve it by birth control rather than murder, which is good but doesn’t take away from my point.

                1. I am saying once you buy into the idea that you can judge someone’s desirability of living based on the circumstances of their birth, you really have bought into Eugenics to some degree.

                  No I said single motherhood is a thing to discourage, (for reasons that are obvious to everyone except cultural Marxists and radical feminists.)

                  You just want to achieve it by birth control rather than murder, which is good but doesn’t take away from my point.

                  When will you ever bother to read the argument you’re opposing? I literally wrote the opposite of that assertion you attribute to me.

                  That’s not to say that birth control is the cure, ending single mother subsidies is the cure.

                  What you said doesn’t take away from my point, it misses it by a country mile.

            2. eugenics
              [yoo-jen-iks]
              noun, ( used with a singular verb)
              1.
              the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)

    3. The movement that says there are far too many humans on the Earth is alive and well to this day. It’s a bizarre combination of pseudoscience and half assed knowledge, like so many other things today. The entire Earth’s population could easily fit within just Texas and everyone would be quite comfortable, but people boggle when you talk about that.

      You can even see this in many examples of popular culture in films like ‘The Matrix’ or ‘The Kingsmen’ where humanity is compared to a Virus that’s destroying Earth. (I know, terrible films, but you get the idea.) In those instances, again it’s a recurring theme that only the ‘right’ people know who should be allowed to continue. Somewhat ironically I think there’s a lot of overlap with that group and the Anti-GMO / Anti-Vaccination crowd, but that isn’t surprising given the level of introspection we’re talking about here.

      So yeah, the modern left still believes in some portions of Eugenics along with population reduction. They couch it in environmental terms these days, by and large, so it’s part of this whole weird secular Gaia worship nonsense to give cover for where those idea’s really originated from. As it turns out ethnic cleansing is totally fine as long it’s for sustainable green reasons. Who knew?

      1. I think the USA is over populated and so is China, much of South America, Europe and some of Africa.

        Its through travel that I have seen these regions. For me, its more of a preference to keep a similar standard of living with low population per square mile in the USA. I hope America does not become populated like China because it sucks for so many reasons.

        I do not advocate eugenics because I think free market would sort the over-population situation out by itself. Our government charity to feed over-populated areas has the effect of raising populations that cannot feed themselves.

        I say go free market, reduce government to 30% of what it is now and revisit this issue in 10 years.


      2. 1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
        2. Guide reproduction wisely ? improving fitness and diversity.

        10. Be not a cancer on the earth ? Leave room for nature ? Leave room for nature.

        Erected by “a small group of loyal Americans” under an assumed name but otherwise anonymous. Gee, it’s almost as if they knew that by implying only 1 in 14 people should be alive, their ideas might be unpopular….

  13. “This is troubling, in part because it shows people supporting a policy that we know violates others’ constitutional rights.”

    The troubling part to me isn’t that certain applications of our rights are unpopular.

    The troubling part is that there’s more willingness to subject unpopular rights to popularity contests.

    Free speech rights for Nazis was never popular.

    Fifth Amendment rights for child murderers was never popular.

    In the past, however, there was more of an understanding that our opinions don’t and shouldn’t matter vis a vis other people’s rights.

    This is an artifact of progressivism taking over from liberalism. Progressivism is all about using the coercive power of government to force individuals to make sacrifices for the common good. Making sacrifices of individuals rights is a prime target of progressives, whether it be property rights, First Amendment religious rights, Second Amendment rights, etc., and elections are the means by which to achieve that.

    We had far less to fear from honest liberals, and back then, the popularity of various rights was much less of a concern. Now that we know the progressives are definitely coming after our rights–on purpose–it’s scary . . .

    But various applications of our rights were never popular. Free speech for the Klan was never popular.

    1. Actually it was.

      Back then, free speech for civil rights activists was not popular.

      1. No, the Klan wasn’t popular.

        . . . not nationally.

        I’m not talking about the 1870s.

        Even many who tolerated it in the South thought it no more than a necessary evil.

        Regardless, the transformation of honest liberals into progressives happened mostly after the 1980s.

        Having friends and family in the the Klan has been a source of embarrassment for people in the South for decades.

        Progessives didn’t really squash out the honest liberals until Obama came to power.

        1. Classical liberalism has a whole lot to admire, whereas Progressivism has nothing at all to admire. At least that’s my opinion after having numerous interactions with both of the above in my day to day life.

    2. In the past, however, there was more of an understanding that our opinions don’t and shouldn’t matter vis a vis other people’s rights.

      Take comfort, Ken, your opinions still don’t matter.

      1. My opinions make you horny.

  14. Uh… going out on a limb here but… because FYTW??

    This has nothing to do with birth control. I don’t give a shit what the harpies say. This is about sticking the jack boot of the state on their political enemies. No more, no less.

    OT: Jack Boot Of The State would make a great band name.

    1. Two-thirds of the population are “harpies . . . sticking the jack boot of the state on their political enemies”?

      1. Yeah? Read anything on here. Hell, even go to the source article. Calling the cops over social ills rather than legitimate crimes. Lobbying. Shutting down presentations of undesirables. Convenient IRS investigations of “wrong think” groups.

        Sure, some sins are greater than others but the vast majority of the populace has demonstrated that they will not hesitate to call on Big Brother to help them get what they want.

      2. Depending on the context I’d say at least 85% of the population is willing to stick the jack boot of the state on their political enemies. Maybe more.

        1. I’m gonna go with “anyone who isn’t an ancap is willing, in some instances, to do that”. If you believe in taxation as a necessary evil, you’ve empowered the state to do whatever it wants. Because the first thing they are gonna do with that money is arm themselves so they can steal more.

          1. I’m gonna go with “anyone who isn’t an ancap is willing, in some instances, to do that”.

            I’m gonna say, neither do Constitutional minarchists.

        2. Another reason to limit the size of the government jackboot, so only the diehard masochists are wearing size 2 jack boots.

    2. It would until the skinheads started showing up at your concerts.

      1. yeaaaaaaah, I thought of that after posting… it will be a fantastic 5 minutes in the meantime though

  15. Supporters of the HHS mandate really like to say that religious employers who choose not to offer contraception coverage are “imposing” their religion on their subordinates.

    If my religion is “Your sleeping around is none of my business and I don’t want to pay for it out of my wallet”, then yes.

    1. LIbertarians don’t have a chance when we’re accused of imposing leaving people alone.

      1. Yeah, I get tired of people playing the religion card as if that’s the only possible reason I could have to oppose this or that leftist position.

        1. Exactly. The right managed to turn inalienable rights into a culture war issue. Thanks.

          1. Possibly because assertion of rights based on non-religious reasons has already been rejected, so they fight with what they have left.

            1. Ding ding ding!

              Try invoking the 9th or 10th amendment, or the Privileges and Immunities Clause, to protect icky “economic rights” like the right to make and enforce contracts.

              It was progs who persuaded the government that they could ignore these rights, and some useful idiot conservatives went along with this in order to be able to oppose lefty judicial activism (“judicial restraint!”).

              The First Amendment’s religious-freedom clause retains some vigor, though no thanks to the Supreme Court. The aforementioned useful idiot conservatives decided the First Amendment didn’t apply when the government accidentally stepped on the exercise of an unpopular religion. But Congress and many of the states pushed back (at first with prog assistance which the progs now regret), so that unpopular religions have at least a fighting chance.

        2. As WTF said, at this point the religion card is the only one that even has a chance of working sometimes.

          1. Don’t fret young man, the progtards are diligently working to destroy that right too.

    2. The Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive left has always had problems with “banning something by government fiat is a violation of rights, declining to pay for it is thrift”

  16. By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free but not a compelling interest in making sure all people get food for free? Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

    Because birth control can be spun as a “women’s issue” and access to food can’t be spun as a unique victim-class issue.

    Look, I’m as willing as anybody to take arguments at face value, assume people are making good-faith arguments, but it’s long past time to accept that the Left are just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. There is no compelling interest in making sure all women get access to birth control or all people get access to food, but anything that can further divide people and drive the identity-politics narrative is a useful stick with which to whack people over the head. They don’t really give a crap about women, the poor, the old, the sick, the hungry, the blacks or the browns or the Muslims – all they care about is “how can we use this to gain power”?

    1. It’s the same thing with the BLM crap – they’re not really interested in reining in the police, they’re more interested in making sure this stays a “black” issue to further alienate blacks from whites, to keep the tribal warfare going, to divide and conquer.

      1. And also BLM caters to the cult of victimhood.

      2. It’s the same thing with the BLM crap – they’re not really interested in reining in the police

        I’m not buying that — if you’re black, like my GF, and you notice the police are killing black citizens in numbers waay out of disproportion to the rest of the populace, you might be more than a little interested in working to ensure that you’re not on the receiving end of that.

        1. I don’t think anybody doubt that, but the cases they decide to highlight and protest are generally the more questionable ones. Take the two most recent ones, the one in Tulsa was clearly criminal but they chose to highlight and protest the Charlotte one which has far more questions to it.

        2. They don’t really give a crap about women, the poor, the old, the sick, the hungry, the blacks or the browns or the Muslims – all they care about is “how can we use this to gain power”?

          Unless your girlfriend is Al Sharpton’s daughter, she’s probably not the “they” I’m referring to.

        3. you notice the police are killing black citizens in numbers waay out of disproportion to the rest of the populace,

          Except even a study by Harvard, hardly a bastion of right-wing nuttery, found no greater tendency for police to kill blacks vs. whites. So that is a false premise.

        4. Please cite your source. National data bases disagree. Even the Washington Post! http://www.dailywire.com/news/…..on-bandler
          Twice the number of “white” victims .vs “black”.

          1. Aren’t there 8 or 9 times as many white people as black in the US?

            1. Black people also commit about half of all the violent crimes.

        5. It’s the same thing with the BLM crap – they’re not really interested in reining in the police

          Read their manifesto. BLM has been assimilated into the proggy hive.

        6. if you’re black, like my GF, and you notice the police are killing black citizens in numbers waay out of disproportion to the rest of the populace,

          Maybe part of the problem is noticing things that are not so. WaPo has a nice database of people killed by cops. Nearly three times as many whites, and disproportionate works both ways. I hear tell that blacks are far more likely to be involved in violent crime than whites. Perhaps an honest discussion is in order — something is awry when that many citizens, of any race, are being killed by LEOs.

        7. The real question is does your black girlfriend notice that most black people are killed by other black people? That’s one of the things I would applaud BLM for if they ever bothered to mention it because it’s the most clear and present danger to the community.

          As I’ve said before elsewhere, BLM has become too large and too inclusive for far too many issues to be effective at anything anymore. It’s an amalgam of groups and issues, and each subgroup has the ability to discredit the whole in many people’s minds. This has been happening at breakneck pace as more and more people treat it as some kind of catch-all-grievance group.

        8. f you’re black, like my GF, and you notice the police are killing black citizens in numbers waay out of disproportion [sic] to the rest of the populace

          Blacks are urban residents and poor way out of proportion to the rest of the populace, too.

          There’s a lot of aggression and very little accountability among the police. That needs to be addressed. But if the problem is racism, then why do so many black people live in places that have high concentrations of police and criminal activity? Lots of cops + lots of crime is not a recipe for peaceful living.

        9. Don’t you think the real problem is police killing anyone (of any color) that is unarmed or that they had not legal cause to?

      3. Oh, no, they certainly don’t want to reign in the police. They want the cops to feel persecuted so they will keep voting for their Libaral masters, and the blacks likewise. That’s why, no matter how outraged they act about police brutality they will never, ever end the drug war or ashcan the petty regulations they expect the cops to enforce.

    2. Because birth control can be spun as a “women’s issue” and access to food can’t be spun as a unique victim-class issue.

      Don’t see why not. Have you visited a woman’s facebook page? IT’S ALL PICTURES OF FOOD!

      1. My East Asian friends post nothing online but pictures of plates of food. What is up with that?

        1. I heard the Asians do it too. Not sure.

        2. Taking photos of food ordered at a restaurant and putting those photos on Instagram is one of those trends I do not understand.

          1. True story bro, I googled the photos of food concept, and the three predominant hits were Generation Why, Women and Asians.

            You know, so we can get to the bottom of this cultural shift. Reason should do a feature length. Sounds like a good Robby article.

    3. I saw an idiot meme on derpbook a while back which was along the lines that it’s okay to force other people to pay for women’s birth control because we force other people to pay for roads, which is also a “common good”. And progtards were congratulating themselves in the comments on how smart and insightful they were.

      1. So what are they arguing for? Publicly supported brothels?

        1. They’ll get there.

  17. Why should not employers be required to provide a free bottle of wine every month?

    1. Four bottles of bourbon a month and not the Evan Williams stuff.

    2. One? It better be a Nebuchadnezzar then.

      1. There is something quite odd about that first picture ….

  18. Please stop giving the whiners more things to feel entitled to.

    1. I do let my boss know I enjoy meetings more when they are scheduled for noon and include free lunch.

  19. “It’s remarkable that so many people think all employers should be forced to cover their employees’ contraception, no matter what, because it suggests that people think birth control is special such that no woman should ever have to pay for it herself.”

    If we’re talking about the opinions of voters, I’m not sure it’s about that.

    I think it’s that fundamentalist Christians are an extremely unpopular bunch right now, and forcing them to do things that are against their religious beliefs is popular because they’re so unpopular.

    Forcing fundamentalist Christians to eat shit is popular. The details are minor.

    1. Could that be why there is no similar support for forcing employers to provide wine or pork?

      1. I’m looking forward to Heartbreak Ridge.

        Apparently, it got a standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival.

        I want to take some progressives to it, see themselves portrayed as anti-religious rights bigots, and watch them choke on their own shit.

        Coming out in November.

          1. +1 unfortunate southern accent

          2. Yeah, I was like, Heartbreak Ridge at the Venice Film Festival?
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo4ir1MtoI
            Those fucking socialist’s head explosions would create a crime scene of epic proportions.

    2. forcing them to do things that are against their religious beliefs is popular because they’re so unpopular

      I’ve noticed that a lot of ungoodthinkful opinions are being blamed on “those crazy religious nuts” lately. It’s just easy to do. Doens’t matter whether it fits or not.

      1. Indeed, yet those same people will then spin around and talk about how we need to protect Muslim religious rights. Which I’m for, but at the same time the double think involved in being for both of those things (religious rights for one, none for the other) is staggering.

        Apparently the only ‘good’ Abrahamic religion for the left is Muslim. Jews and Christians can go fuck themselves.

  20. Which do you think is cheaper? Giving contraception to everyone who wants it or the enforcement cost of defining personhood as beginning at conception.

    1. The problem is giving people contraceptives isn’t the same thing as getting them to use it. Contraceptives are relatively cheap, especially when you consider the cost they are designed to eliminate. People are not having unplanned pregnancies because they can’t afford contraceptives. They are having unplanned pregnancies because they are too lazy to use them. Buy someone all the birth control pills you like. It won’t keep them from getting pregnant if they forget to take the pill every day. It sounds unbelievable but it is true that the biggest challenge for a lot of people is remembering to take the pill, not affording it in the first place.

      1. No, I get that and agree.

        I’m just wondering about the sheer economics of it. One isn’t a solution for the other.

        1. Actually making an abortion ban meaningful is a nasty business. Pro life people either have no idea how it would work or are not honest enough to admit it.

          The biggest thing that keeps people from having kids is money. We have made kids a luxury item. If pro life people want to reduce the number of abortions, they would be better off concentrating on taxes and all the bullshit nanny state regulations that make kids so expensive. If the government would stop making raising a kid more expensive than it needs to be and stop taking so much of what people earn, having a child wouldn’t be such a burden and more people would have them and there would be fewer abortions.

          The other thing they could do, and God help the poor bastard who suggests this, is let people sell their kids in adoption. There are people out there paying tens of thousands of dollars for fertility treatments. If women knew they could sell their kids for even a few thousand dollars on an adoption market, they would be much less likely to get abortions. Good luck selling that idea.

          1. Pro life people either have no idea how it would work or are not honest enough to admit it.

            A combination of both from all I’ve seen.

            I’m not sure I can see a real difference between selling children and the directed adoption market as it stands. A directed adoption, where a pregnant woman is paired with an adoptive couple early in the process and they provide all her health care and living expenses, is as much paying for a child as the NCAA is paying for college players. A directed adoption is often around 50K all told from articles I’ve read.

            1. That is paying them, but it is not paying them what the market would bear and it is not allowing them to walk away with cash in their pockets. Having a baby is a pretty big imposition. You need more than just your medial and living expenses paid for to make it worthwhile unless you have a moral issue with abortion.

              1. Of course.

                But it’s just sort of like the prostitution / dinner, drinks, movie, sex paradox. (ie. one is illegal and the other is just dating.)

          2. Pro life people either have no idea how it would work or are not honest enough to admit it.

            Yeah, you’ve mentioned that before and it made me re-think some things. I’m basically pro-life but I really don’t know how you would legislate it. My wife surprised me the other day when we were talking about this as she said she had no problem jailing both women and doctors who went through an abortion. That’s a big deal because she generally hates government regulating anything and knows the prison system is unjust. But, she is also committed to sanctity of life. At least she’s thought through the ramifications of her beliefs.

            1. I am really pro life. And I really don’t have a problem in theory with jailing someone who had an elective abortion. The problem is I don’t see how you figure out who that is without stomping all over the privacy rights and dignity of every woman who has a miscarriage that doesn’t occur in the hospital with gold plated documentation. That is a price I am not willing to pay to stop abortions.

              1. Probably the same way every death does not trigger a murder investigation.

                1. No it doesn’t Mickey. But miscarriages are really common. A lot more common than accidental deaths, especially accidental or deaths by natural causes that occur in ways that are not obvious in their cause.

                  A lot of people believe in the right to abortion. And they would no doubt give abortions no matter what the law. So, how do we catch those people? I don’t see how you do without seriously investigating miscarriages. And if you don’t try and catch them, what is the point of the ban? I don’t believe in passing laws that cannot be enforced or that the government is unwilling to enforce.

              2. And I’m with John on this, since a good friend’s mom had two miscarriages (one before his older sister, one before him), and in neither case was she actually in the hospital before it happened. In fact, it hospitalized her in both cases, for several weeks.

              3. The problem is I don’t see how you figure out who that is without stomping all over the privacy rights and dignity of every woman who has a miscarriage that doesn’t occur in the hospital with gold plated documentation.

                John I agree with you on many things but the idea that it would be in any way feasible to do this is just ridiculous. Most women who have miscarriages don’t go to the hospital and there are strong indications that most don’t even know they were pregnant. Of those who do know they are pregnant, many of the people around them did not. I had a miscarriage in my bathroom last year. Only three people in my life knew about it.

                Basically to investigate every miscarriage the government would have to mandate and record pregnancy tests on every woman then perform 24/7 surveillance on every women’s bathroom.

                1. Then there’s the fact that you can’t investigate a miscarriage like you can with the death of an adult or child. The information we have on causes of miscarriage is maybe 1/10 scientifically supported, with the remaining 9/10 being a combination of old wives’ tales, anecdotes, and nebulous research. “Looks like the suspect had an aspirin and a coffee this morning. *insert Law and Order tones*”

                  1. It’s hard to investigate a death when no one knew the victim existed and the murder weapon could have been anything from a cold cut sandwich to bathwater that was slightly too hot

              4. We could stop using taxpayer money to pay for abortions but keep abortion legal.

            2. Well, what she’s saying is the logical position. I’m sorry, but if abortion is a crime, making the person who orders the crime not a culprit is a joke.

              1. I agree: I was just saying I’d never really thought through the full legal ramifications of being pro-life until a few months ago whereas my wife has.

      2. New idea, all employers will be required to administer birth control like elementary schools used to do (still do?) with the pink fluoride.

        1. I’ve often wondered what our world would look like if alcohol was a contraceptive.

          1. A barren wasteland.

      3. The problem is further exacerbated by our insane, perverse welfare and child support policies which are often an incentive for women to have kids they can’t really afford.

        Take away the welfare and I promise you even dumb women will start to think twice about shtupping every over guy they meet unprotected.

        1. ^THIS. Not only is the system set up the allow women to engage in irresponsible behavior, it’s structured to encourage it. Keep having babies, but don’t get married or we’ll cut your “benefits”. I think behaviors and attitudes would change quickly if there was a law that limited welfare benefits to one year.

          1. Personal responsibility baby!

      4. IUDs, yo. They are cheap and effective and they last for years.

    2. When we’re done with that analysis, what are we going to do next?

      Take an honest look at the reinstitution of slavery and see whether that’s likely to benefit more people that it hurts?

      Violating people’s rights might be lucrative, but I’d prefer to live in a free society even if it were for just qualitative reasons alone.

      1. I would like to see an analyst if it would have been more efficient to pay farm hands than to buy slaves. It seems like it would be cheaper to pay for labor than buy a slave and provide food, shelter, healthcare, etc.

        1. It depends on the regulatory structure. If you had to provide all the health coverage and lifestyle upkeep that the hired hand expects, slaves would be wildly uneconomical.

        2. You have to look at the big picture – the slaveholders weren’t looking at just the economics of production, they were attempting to maintain a feudal social structure. The big plantations weren’t just farms, they were self-sufficient mini-cities much as the castles and lands of the old European aristocracy were. If you weren’t a serf serving the local lord, what else was there for you to do? The slaveholders were opposed to industrialization and modernity because it threatened the established order and their place atop the pecking order. If people had their own economy and their own source of income, they weren’t dependent on the local lord and the local lord wasn’t having any of that.

      2. Both sides of my question don’t think any rights are being violated, or, at least, not the rights of anyone who matters.

        Although, the true comparison would be the cost of paying for abortions vs. enforcing a prohibition.

        1. Your talk about giving free contraception to people is violating someone’s establishment rights and probably their free exercise rights, as well.

          If the government can force nuns to fund things that violate their religious convictions, then why shouldn’t fundamentalists be free to force atheist kids to pray in public schools?

          1. I’m not advocating either, Ken.

            1. “Which do you think is cheaper? Giving contraception to everyone who wants it or the enforcement cost of defining personhood as beginning at conception.”

              And I’m sure you also appreciate that the affordability of these options isn’t the only consideration.

    3. Which do you think is cheaper?

      False choices are stupid?

      1. OK, the pedantic cunt has chimed in. Anyone else?

        1. I don’t think an argument for strict limitations on the role of Government can be easily replaced with a utilitarian, “Govt can/should do anything, provided it can be claimed to be (theoretically) “cheaper” than some false-alternative

          I seem to recall this argument being made before, in one of the last abortions of an abortion-thread. It wasn’t any better then.

        2. I don’t doubt that “free” BC is cheaper (yeah, yeah… TANSTAAFL, I’m aware). Of course, like everything else that government subsidizes, at what point does the BC industry suddenly “have financial troubles” and “needs more money for research” or whatever excuses the other industries use? Because it is inevitable.

          1. Isn’t that always the thing? I mean, just the third-party payer problem is going to cause the cost of contraception to spiral out of control even before the industry starts playing the “research costs” side of the game.

            Or course, if fertility is now a medical condition, how could it not be a pre-existing condition?

    4. Which do you think is cheaper? Giving contraception to everyone who wants it or the enforcement cost of defining personhood as beginning at conception.

      Birth control pills ought to be $5 bucks and a three-minute trip to Wal-Greens.Not by act of legislation – that’s around where the market would probably put it if the benevolent government got out of the way.

      We don’t need to make birth control cheap, it’s already cheap. We need to get rid of the regulations that artificially inflate the price.

      1. No. We want to smear your pap first… Let us smear it.

        1. Smeared Pap was O.B.G.Yeah!‘s best album.

        2. Is that what papayas are made of?

          My papa would be upset you smeared that guy.

    5. Which do you think is cheaper? Giving contraception to everyone who wants it or the enforcement cost of defining personhood as beginning at conception.

      Does it matter? If (note the if) we define personhood as beginning at conception, we are protecting the rights of a person. Why would we count the cost of that, and compare it to the cost of a welfare program?

      1. +1

        Respecting an individual’s rights is a pain in the ass.

        So what?

        That’s the government’s legitimate job.

        If the Drug War were far more economically efficient than legalization and the pain that causes, I’d still be against it anyway.

        If the Second Amendment really did make it so that more people die than would if we banned guns, I’d still support the Second Amendment anyway.

        I’m glad when respecting people’s rights happens to have better outcomes quantitatively, but that’s just icing on the cake. I prefer freedom for qualitative reasons, which utilitarians have never been able to properly account for. If violating someone’s rights is more economically efficient, so what? The government should still respect those rights anyway.

        1. Yup. The more difficult for government, the better.

          For most people it is hard to tell people NO. Millennials should have been told that more.

    6. Why either? You seem to be working from the perverse notion that everything requires we do something. But we don’t. We can allow women who want to to buy their own abortions and contraception.

  21. Now I want a meatball sub for lunch.

    1. …..mmmmm….. meatball abortion…….

      1. Is the gravy/sauce what I think it is?

  22. Our company just switched insurance providers. I was quite surprised to see on the coverage summary that if I wanted to have my tubes tied, it would be covered at 100% with no deductible (in-network, of course). But if I had to have a life-saving surgery, it would cost thousands of dollars before I even hit my deductible.

    1. In rtheir defense, tying tubes is a much less complicated procedure.

      1. Sure, but so are lots of other procedures that aren’t covered at 100%. What makes this particular one so special?

        1. Tying your tubes lowers potential future costs by guaranteeing that you won’t gain any additional dependents whereas that life saving surgery carries large costs both short and long-term. If they can persuade you to choose dying over pursuing it, that’s a win or them.

          This is whey we need socialized medicine, because then all the costs for these surgeries just go away and you can pursue options with your health in mind.

          1. “Then all the costs for these surgeries just go away.”

            *Dies laughing*

      2. Not when you don’t have tubes. Or perhaps that’s why it’s covered.

      3. In their defense, these are the kind of dipshits who legislate stuff about tubes, etc. What do you expect?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

  23. This is troubling, in part because it shows people supporting a policy that we know violates others’ constitutional rights. That’s not just my opinion?this is a question the Supreme Court has already ruled on.

    This seems to imply that people should view the Constitution as meaning whatever a majority of SCOTUS justices say it means — which is how we got to this point in the first place, since it implies that winning an election means you can change the Constitution without amending it, by replacing SCOTUS justices.

      1. I’m guessing, given the lack of respect for unpopular rights among both the right and left, is that the result of a Constitutional convention would be about what happened to the Articles of Confederation when some allegedly minor tweaks were to be discussed and voted on.

        1. I’m pretty sure we’d come out of such a convention with Hate Speech, Safe Space, and Campaign Finance (i.e.: incumbent protection) amendments replacing the 1st.

          1. Remember, any amendment has to be ratified by 38 states (3/4) — after getting out of the convention. I may be overly optimistic, but I don’t think those would get past enough states to get ratified. Check out the Convention of States website for more info.

            1. Deals would be made, processes changed, and the whole thing would be shoved through as a package. Never underestimate the ability of the power structure to game the system.

    1. Nobody says they are changing the constitution – they (she) simply think that the constitution is subject to “reasonable regulation”. Now go spend several hundreds of dollars to exercise your constitutional rights. (for now, only the second amendment; later who knows?)

  24. Wasn’t the free employer-paid birth control argument that the insurance was already paying for viagra?

    Utterly bizarre, untrue and irrational but that’s what I kept seeing, hearing, reading…

      1. I suppose the “so what” is that you can’t make an argument that “Mandatory Health Insurance” shouldn’t be covering “non-essentials”….. when at the same time boner-pills are currently being subsidized by the government.

        iow, its seen as “Free Stuff For Me, and Not for Thee”. Because it *is* i guess.

    1. I heard that argument, so I called my insurer and asked if they would pay for Viagra. The answer was, and still is: No, boner pills are not covered under my insurance. My insurance company is one of the big ones, so this is not an anomaly.

      Also, I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago. I paid for nearly the entire cost via deductibles, copays, etc. It was still a good investment on my part.

  25. Damn straight employers must provide free food! But only 100% organic, fair trade, vegan, gluten-free food produced by unionized workers.

  26. I don’t see it mentioned in the article… but isn’t part of the insistence that contraception be made part of “comprehensive health coverage” based on the already-retarded idea that contraception is currently regulated like a pharmeceutical? and (“The Pill” at least) is otherwise unavailable without a prescription?

    If you got rid of the bullshit red-tape around contraception, and let it be available at every checkout counter in america, the argument that people can just buy it themselves on-demand would make a lot more sense.

    The moralists really sort of painted themselves into a corner here, first making ‘the morning after pill’ etc “hard to get”… then once it became so hard to get, well then it was a Medical Specialty, which must therefore be part of essential healthcare coverage. If the god-botherers had stayed out of it in the first place, i don’t think we’d have this problem.

    1. If the bullshit red tape around contraception is that it costs a few bucks a month, the rest of the healthcare system could use more of this red tape.

      1. the bullshit red tape around contraception is that it costs a few bucks a month

        I was referring to the fact that the pill is unavailable OTC without a prescription.

        1. Understood, but somehow, contraception remains relatively widely available and cheap.

          1. contraception remains relatively widely available and cheap.

            …provided you can get a doctor’s script? you seem to keep glossing past that.

            and re:

            feminists have been pushing (successfully) to get the pill sold in vending machines.

            Which is funny because there have been other (ostensibly) feminist groups which have actually argued against making contraception available without a prescription, suggesting its a “safety” issue

            I havent bothered scraping all the bullshit off their arguments, but i presume the underlying idea is that they’re taking advantage of exactly the problem i identified in the first place, and using The Pill’s ‘behind the counter’ status as a means to get contraception ‘Federalized’ as a medical necessity.

            1. I don’t know if anything has changed since… but Nat Review covered objections to making the Pill OTC about a year ago…

              The supposedly pro-woman Left has erupted into fury this past week, denouncing new legislation proposed by Senator Cory Gardner (R., Colo.) that seeks to encourage over-the-counter status for birth control. Salon… called the senator perpetually “full of s**t.” Planned Parenthood’s president claimed that the bill “is a sham and an insult to women.”….

              The… criticism of Gardner’s plan derives from a deep public-sector and special-interest-backed paternalism that wants to control women’s health choices just as much as any other supposed patriarchy.

              …the prescription requirement keeps women beholden to their gynecologist, forcing them to submit to intrusive and uncomfortable once-a-year doctor’s visits in exchange for a pink slip for the pill.

              But while pelvic exams and Pap smears can help physicians detect everything from sexually transmitted diseases to cervical cancer, these procedures tell them basically nothing about whether a woman can safely take birth control. …. in 2010, the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology found that 29 percent of doctors always required a pelvic exam before penning a prescription, while an additional 45 percent of them “usually” did so.

              1. to that last point = i think its a bit of regulatory capture, in a way, where Gynos can collect annual fees in the process of granting ‘permission slips’ to people who want a prescription.

                It sounds like the way my mom’s mechanic has found annual problems with her car = she has no idea how cars work, so anytime she goes to see him, its like a guaranteed $100 Stupid-Tax.

            2. See? While not glossing past it, I addressed it directly. Look, I can’t explain all the ins and outs, all I’m saying is that even WITH a script, it’s hardly reached epipen levels of cost which means sans the zillion pound hammer of government, it’s still easily and widely available.

              We’re not in disagreement here. Yes, get the FDA out of the BC business. But that bullshit testimony that BC costs thousands a month, and the press carried the water for that argument was… bullshit.

              1. We’re not in disagreement here

                I think your characterization as “still easily and widely available” misses the point that lots of people don’t have access to a gyno – like teens – nor the annual expense for a $150~ pap smear, etc. – and the Left uses this fact as a lever to demand that the federal govt provide BC as a “necessity”.

                My point was that if you stripped these artificial barriers away, it would be *far cheaper*.

                The status quo is shitty because of a combination of the Right’s legacy demands for barriers… as well as the Left’s preference to grant favors to preferred institutions like Planned Parenthood, etc., and give them special-gatekeeper status.

                Both the left and the right are preventing the “liberalization” of women’s birth control.

                We may not be in disagreement, but i’m not sure the details of the problem right now are being characterized accurately

            3. “…provided you can get a doctor’s script?”

              You need a prescription for condoms?

              Fuck I’ve been out of the game a while.

              1. You need a prescription for condoms?

                We’re talking about the pill, silly

                1. Funny, I kept reading it as “contraception”.

        2. For the vast majority of women who use the pill, the cost of processing the claim is at least double the cost of the reimbursement. (I’ve know a manager at one of the private firms that processes Medicare claims)

          But you are correct if you mean it’s an issue of sexual discrimination applied to no other prescription. It might be best to argue that the zero co-pay is a special privilege in most plans — on top of the costly claims processing (one reason co-pays exist at all!).

          1. the cost of processing the claim is at least double the cost of the reimbursement.

            my head hurts whenever i contemplate this sort of insantity

            1. My niece has a prescription for a thyroid condition that she used to pay a $15 co-pay on for the $70 insurance charge. Since switching insurance companies and finding that particular medication is not on the approved list she’s had to start paying cash out of pocket for it. Cash price for the scrip is $14.

              I’m assuming there’s lots of crap like that in a third-party payment system.

              1. That sounds similar to the growing number of providers who give discounts as high as 50% or more for those who pay cash, even more if it’s Medicare, to escape the paperwork..

                A few years back I managed an election campaign for a libertarian physician. He and his are the very soft-spoken, “super sweet” type of Christians. I say that only to emphasize how his wife totally broke down in tears describing Medicare paperwork. It’s a small town with a high percentage of retirees. I can still “see” her shaking with in grief. Every Saturday she did the paperwork for claims his secretary could not get to during the week. Took most of her day, and what drove her over the edge was the one or two Sundays per month she had to work.

  27. I’m just disappointed that the right has let the left drag the battleground to haggling over whether these minor religious exceptions for inexpensive products belong in the set of things that government must force insurance to cover.

    The set is null. There should be no standard for insurance. You should be allowed to sell a policy that covers everything except cancer. You should be allowed to sell a cancer only policy. You should be allowed to sell a policy where if the policy holder gets sick a scary clown shows up and punches them in the face until they get better. That last one wouldn’t be a best seller but there’s no legitimate government interest in preventing such a contract from being signed.

    1. Selling is racist. Having to buy is proof of the violence inherent in the system.

  28. By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free but not a compelling interest in making sure all people get food for free? Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

    One word: rights.

    Congress doesn’t go on ad nauseam about our right to food. They don’t have long-winded public hysterics about our right to a meatball sub. They don’t solicit poor women to testify before Congress about the impact of California’s pet egg legislation on a working person’s grocery budget.

    They shriek and stomp and caterwaul to the very heavens about our “reproductive rights”. And they’re not rights. They never were.

    Every woman in America has access to an abortion on needed demand. If a woman shows up at an emergency room with a life-threatening medical issue due to a complication of reproduction – ectopic pregnancy, say – she will get one. Not thanks to Roe v Wade, but thanks to EMTALA.

    People think rights mean “free”. Nothing is free. A right is a guarantee of access to a market. Now, perhaps if government would stop adding onerous requirements to accessing the market that make getting these products complicated and raise the price significantly, then we’d be talking. But the government isn’t interested in our access to the market, they’re interested in manipulating their command-and-control system for personal enrichment.

    1. I think the “rights” position was inevitable once the argument became public. Too many people think that if you can’t find a “right” to do something in the first eight amendments, then banning it–even in the most draconic ways–is just fine. But then we’d have to beat the idea that rights are innate into people’s heads, an idea that has only seen brief spurts of popularity in human history.

      1. I wish the same logic could be applied when someone shoves a pitchfork in my back and tells me to get cracking on providing other peoples’ right to X.

  29. Hey, my former employer did buy me cheesesteaks, a trip to the casinos, a nice pair of wing-tips, a contribution to reason and various charities, a couple of silk ties, even one of Brian Douherty’s books. In fact, I have tons of things my employer bought. All through some employer-sponsored program you might have heard of called “a paycheck.”

  30. Culture war. The anti-abortion activists are using the same bad-faith, take-a-mile-if-given-an-inch tactics as the anti-gun activists. So their opponents, in both cases, have become radicalized and are refusing to give that inch, no matter how unreasonable that position might seem to be. Any offer of a “moderate,” “reasonable,” or “compromise” proposal is not just a poisoned well, but a shell crater half-filled with pieces of dead and rotting corpses, in the middle of a political no-mans-land.

    1. It hurts a lot of feeling when you make this valid comparison.

      1. Yup. Both are willing to take incremental gains on the way to a total ban.

        And, once it becomes a culture war good v evil issue, there’s no room for compromise.

        Sad, really.

  31. ” By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free…”

    that’s an easy one.

    The Federal government couldn’t care less about the cost of birth control. The Democrats however, have used “birth control” and reproductive rights as a platform hot-topic for decades to garner as much of the woman vote as possible. They have framed any opposition to the topic as sexism, or a “war or women”, solely to scare fragile women into thinking the Republicans are going to send them back to dark alleys with coat-hangers in hand.
    If Republicans supported free, widely available birth control, the Dems would immediately take the opposition position, framing it as a “war on women” and an attempt to subjugate them as sex-objects.

    1. And to answer the second part. The reason the feds don’t apply the same logic to food, is that it has not become a political hot-topic.
      Food charities have long been dominated by Church groups and Christian organizations. The Dems have no interest in touching this topic as it does not help them politically. The Reps would gain nothing by forcing the issue as the largest beneficiaries of free food would be the inner-city destitute, which by-and-large vote 90% Dem.

    2. “Republicans supported free, widely available birth control, the Dems would immediately take the opposition position, framing it as a “war on women” and an attempt to subjugate them as sex-objects.”

      This has already happened. Some GOP senators have tried to make birth control available OTC and team blued revved up their pundits to complain that this would make poor women have to pay a few bucks out of their pocket for this “right” and also hurt their health, since they would no longer have to go to the doctor to get birth control.

  32. Real rights don’t have a constituency. Fake rights do. See the difference?

    1. Sorry, privileges do. I shouldn’t have said fake rights because it sounds pejorative. And there’s nothing pejorative about privileges, other than they’re things which can be given or taken away at the whim of those providing said privileges.

  33. Food’s not medicine. My vasectomy was paid for with no co-pay. And why is male birth control never attacked?

    Gary Johnson needs to better explain his point that Christians should not enjoy special privileges denied others, which is an argument for expanding those privileges and immunities, aka equal rights, which he explains too rarely. It’s also a better way to begin a conversation against public accommodations and other violations of free association. It will likely take a while, but is less likely to be conflated with racists and other bigots. Equal rights is a widely shared value. Let’s apply it properly. If not libertarians, then who?

    1. Gary Johnson needs to better explain his point that Christians should not enjoy special privileges denied others, which is an argument for expanding those privileges and immunities, aka equal rights, which he explains too rarely.

      Yes, he should. It’s a very important argument. If a law violates religious freedom, it shouldn’t apply to anyone. Special carve-outs for people with certain beliefs grants special privileges and violates equal protection. The first amendment doesn’t say that no one can be forced to violate their religious beliefs. It says something stronger, namely that no laws should exist that violate anyone’s religious beliefs. If a law is found in court to violate the “free exercise” clause, the whole law needs to be thrown out.

      1. If a law violates religious freedom, it shouldn’t apply to anyone.

        The only alternative is the “establishment of religion”, as the State has to validate your religion in order to respect your rights.

        1. Yes. If someone gets to decide if your religious beliefs are sincerely held and valid, you don’t really have religious freedom.

      2. f a law is found in court to violate the “free exercise” clause, the whole law needs to be thrown out.

        Did you not learn the core of our founding principles in high school.?
        Jefferson’s Declaration traces back hundreds of years in Natural Law. NO rights are absolute, even the most fundamental rights, They can conflict with e3ach other, And all unalienable rights, by definition, are precisely equal to each other. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness and all the others are equal to each other,

        Like there’s no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater,
        Or more specifically, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. That nose tip is the boundary between two equal rights and that boundary can be established ONLY by the Judiciary (regardless of Ron Paul’s bullshit)

  34. As Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, put it, “access to affordable contraception is essential to women’s equality and economic security.”

    Of course the assertion is highly debatable, considering that there’s no such thing as “economic security” and women are already equal under the law; the assertion itself is no justification for employer-paid contraception, unless Ms. Northup wants us to believe that economic security is predicated on the willingness of the employer to provide something besides a wage, or in other words: economic security goes back to mean “being supported by someone else.” Is that the new feminism we have been hearing about?

    If I don’t eat, I will die. So why shouldn’t my employer be required to pay for my meals, above and beyond my base wages,

    Because that is already implied in the fight for a higher minimum wage. A minimum wage or, as it is known among those for whom the proper meaning of words is meaningless, a “living wage”, is meant to feed, clothe and house a family of four with dog and cat. This absurdity is taken as a given and so is the idea that employers MUST feed their employees by granting them higher wages.

    1. You are missing the real point. The proffered justification is bullshit. What is going on here is nothing more than Barack Fuckstain Obama rewarding a political lobby for its political support. This is the central theme of the Obama Presidency: Reward your friends, punish your enemies.

      1. ” This is the central theme of the Obama Presidency: Reward your friends, punish your enemies.”

        Agree, but you need to add the words ‘some of’ after reward. Lots of Obama’s supporters are no better off for their support, and I’m sure more than a few who have fallen behind over the past 8 years. Dealing patronage is not the worst thing for the central theme of a presidency. This time next year we may all look back in appreciation at Obama’s lack of direction.

    2. there’s no such thing as “economic security”

      (He never stops!)

  35. Unless you are starving to death, I’m pretty sure your employer is covering the full cost of your food.

    1. That doesn’t count. You can’t expect people to use their wages to pay for necessities – those are for pursuing dreams and paying taxes, which is basically redundant.

      1. Health insurance isn’t part of your wages?

        I know people like to pretend it isn’t, but come on.

        1. Personally, I think it’s only right that the government force employers of a certain size to provide employees and their children with a per diem for nutritious food or home delivery of the same in addition to their salaries.

          It’s in their best interests and ours – the starving and those with starving kids are naturally less productive, and by pushing this collective responsibility back onto employers we both remove the implicit subsidy that SNAP/etc provide to them and diminish the potential tax burden on working families.

    2. You’ve never heard of an EBT card?

      1. Those are food stamps, not wages.

  36. “Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?”

    Contraception is covered under typical health care plans. Food is not.

    1. WOOOOOSSSHHHHH!!!!!!!

      1. WTF is STILL fucking stupid!
        WOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

    2. And the plans that did not cover it are not forced to cover contraceptives. So why not force them to cover meatball subs?

      You think you’re clever, but logic says otherwise.

      1. “So why not force them to cover meatball subs?”

        I don’t think the public expect health care plans to cover meatball subs. And they don’t demand it, even though both male and female customers could be expected to avail themselves. If you think there is a demand, why not start your own health care plan which includes meatball subs?

    3. Re: mtrueman,

      Contraception is covered under typical health care plans.

      You just avoided answering the question you quoted yourself.

      SOME plans covered contraception. The question is why should it be mandated by the Federal Government that employers cover contraception.

      1. “The question is why should it be mandated by the Federal Government that employers cover contraception.”

        Because it wins votes? What do you think the reason is?

    4. Contraception is covered under typical health care plans. Food is not.

      See all the shit you stirred up with common sense instead of anti-gummint screeching?

      P.S. Vasectomies are not controversial, right? But that’s male contraception.

  37. Excellent article, Slade. Battle Suave’s hair for dominion over our afternoons, please.

  38. Besides the fact that the contraceptives mandate was unnecessary (even by the government’s own analysis, 98% of all women had access to affordable contraceptives) and that it obviously violates religious liberty (under RFRA, since there is no compelling interest, the mandate cannot be imposed on those with a religious exemption), no one ever talks about how making contraceptives ‘free’ increases the prices of other drugs. If the intention of the mandate was to reduce healthcare costs (which it has not been shown that the mandate achieves this at all) then why not make asthma medicine ‘free’, as most emergency visits are due to asthma attacks? That would at least lower costs.

    The whole purpose of this mandate was to impose the Left’s cultural standards on the religious. The next step is to force all hospitals to perform abortions, which has already begun to be litigated.

    1. “The whole purpose of this mandate was to impose the Left’s cultural standards on the religious.”

      See my comment to Old Mexican above.

      Hey — if 70% of wealthy white male golfers had voted for Obama in 2008, mandatory employer payment for club memberships, with no deductables or co-pays, would be the law.

      1. Rich white liberals are the the base of the president’s support, so I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, regressive. The president won the income bracket above $100,000 per year. You don’t honestly think that Democrats or regressives are the friend of working people, do you?

        Ask a coal miner or anyone that doesn’t work for government how much of a great friend of the working man regressives are

        1. My point is that the contraceptive mandate is Obama paying off a voting bloc that has reliably supported him. What is your point?

          1. No point. I just like rambling

      2. “wealthy white male golfers had voted for Obama in 2008, mandatory employer payment for club memberships”

        If you are an employee, and rely on income, you aren’t really wealthy.

  39. Stephanie I think you mean to ask, “Why are birth control pills *specifically* legislated into employers’ compensation packages” …because obviously, women are not getting “free” birth control pills via the company-sponsored healthcare plan that is a large part of their compensation.

    The definition of Employment is an exchange of services for compensation: employees agree to do work in exchange for the means to have a home, a tasty meatball sub now and then, and yes, that healthcare plan (or lack of one) is also part of one’s overall compensation. We all pay for our own company healthcare plans, one way or another, usually in the form of reduced wages. Fringe benefits go up, and poof! Real wages stagnate or are lowered, because, as far as employers are concerned, there is no difference to the company’s bottom line between compensating an employee $400 a month in Blue Cross premiums or $400 a month in Subway Gift Cards (more commonly referred to as deposit of wages to employee’s checking account).

    1. Except they’d have to pay tax on the Subway gift cards.

  40. Stop giving them ideas!

  41. Not all women take oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancy. Many women take oral contraceptives to regulate menstruation. One to two percent of women worldwide have von Willebrand Disease, a common bleeding disorder which causes heavy periods. Additionally, women who are carriers of bleeding disorders such as hemophilia, or women with other gynecological problems also suffer from menorrhagia. In these cases, oral contraceptives are necessary for quality of life. It’s about more than morale and productivity, it’s about more than entitlement. It’s about the fact that oral contraceptives are also life-saving drugs. If it were men who bled heavily for three weeks every month, we’d not question their need. Apparently women should just expect to put up with it to save an employer money.

    1. Yes. They should.

      Fuck off, slaver.

    2. If you don’t like your business’s healthcare plan then complain or find another job. It’s not your business

    3. Not all women take oral contraceptives to prevent pregnancy

      Wait a minute, I’ve been telling women for years they can’t get pregnant orally, are you saying I’m misinformed?

    4. One to two percent of women worldwide have von Willebrand Disease, a common bleeding disorder which causes heavy periods.

      Is it common or is it only 1 or 2% of the worldwide female population?

    5. When prescribed to treat those mentioned disorders, oral contraception is covered.

  42. In my experience this line of reasoning has some chance of resonating with the average non-progressive. But if you want to see most people’s logic center explode, try arguing that if we expect parents to pay for their kids’ food (or clothing, housing, etc.), and not have taxpayers pay, why do we force taxpayers to pay for children’s education?

    1. Why?

      Same reason we have Social Security, Unemployment Benefits, Disablity, Medicare and so-on.

      That is to say, because there are some expenses that, sooner or later, most people will have. And most/many people are very very bad at planning for them. And the consequences of that typical and recurring poor planning can be very disastrous to folks, which (in the long-term and aggregate) lead to lower economic outcomes for individuals and groups.

      So clothing, housing, etc? Folks are (historically and currently) pretty good at planning for and taking care of that. Education, retirement, and “what if I lose my arms in a tragic flour mill accident”? Most people don’t plan for that.

      That’s why the taxpayer directly pays for primary education, but only indirectly pays for children’s clothing/shelter/food. And even then, if the child’s family is poor enough, the taxpayer will have more direct involvement there to.

      Or, to make a long snark short: that only makes “most people’s logic center explode” if they’ve forgotten indirect costs and the history of why we have many government programs.

      You don’t have to like those programs to understand why we have them.

      1. That is to say, because there are some expenses that, sooner or later, most people will have.

        Like food.

        Or, to make a long snark short: that only makes “most people’s logic center explode” if they’ve forgotten indirect costs and the history of why we have many government programs.

        Except we can and do plan for indirect costs. That’s why I have home insurance. In the case of medial insurance, because the government has inserted itself into every state of the medical process (and thusly made medical insurance exactly not like insurance), those indirect costs have exploded beyond even a relatively wealthy person’s ability to pay in the case of a catastrophe. So yes, again, blow the PRICE of indirect costs out of proportion through government meddling, then everyone points to those costs and says, “See? This is why we need government involved!”

        1. Like food.
          Only superficially. The distinction you skipped was “very bad at planning for”. Most folks are pretty good at making sure food is covered. But most are shitty at making sure medical, retirement, and long-term low-probability stuff is covered.

          Except we can and do plan for indirect costs
          Nah. Individuals can, sure. But people as a whole? Sorry, but we’re shit enough at it that people, as a whole, decided it was easier to disperse the costs to everyone then to let folks suffer the misfortune of their own poor planning.

          As I said, you don’t have to like a reason to understand it. And perhaps more importantly, if you want to argue against it, you’ll be a lot more effective if you understand the reason, rather then pretending it was done strictly to be malicious.

          1. Only superficially. The distinction you skipped was “very bad at planning for”. Most folks are pretty good at making sure food is covered. But most are shitty at making sure medical, retirement, and long-term low-probability stuff is covered.

            There’s so much question-begging here, I’m not sure where to begin. How did people ‘plan for medical’ before we had employer mandated insurance? How did people plan for retirement before social security?

            Nah. Individuals can, sure. But people as a whole? Sorry, but we’re shit enough at it that people, as a whole, decided it was easier to disperse the costs to everyone then to let folks suffer the misfortune of their own poor planning.

            It took me a second to understand this, then I realized you typod “then” for “than”. Well, yes, except all we successfully did was impose a kind of moral hazard on those same people which merely raised the PRICE of successful planning. You know where this goes, right?

            As I said, you don’t have to like a reason to understand it

            I hear what you’re saying. Perhaps saying that people are implementing it out of maliciousness is misdirection. It’s malicious to rape and rob your neighbors to assuage your own empathy pains, and makes the problem worse.

            Venezuela didn’t implement socialism out of maliciousness. But the results were vicious, and their insistence on sticking to it is entirely malicious.

            1. How did people ‘plan for medical’ before we had employer mandated insurance?
              Same as now: poorly.

              There’s a reason medical debt is a chart-topper for “reasons people go bankrupt”.

              How did people plan for retirement before social security?
              Having children and dying young, mostly.

              Well, yes, except all we successfully did was impose a kind of moral hazard on those same people which merely raised the PRICE of successful planning.
              … and? “Why we do things” and “did we do them well” are two different topics.

      2. And btw, social security is a great example of something that started in a fairly straightforward way– a forced government retirement program to help people who don’t (or can’t) save for retirement– and blew up into something that doesn’t represent its original purpose in any way whatsoever, and isn’t tethered in any way with the contributions made by its participants.

        1. Yup. Another gem of progressive BS that has become one of the top 3 debt burdens facing the USA.

          Ironic that Social Security was sold as an involuntary retirement program for those who didn’t save and now we are being forced to continue to pay for this which takes away from our own retirement savings?

      3. Or, to make a long snark short: that only makes “most people’s logic center explode” if they’ve forgotten indirect costs and the history of why we have many government programs.

        Or if they’re special pleading because they’re really, really stupid and support Italian fascism but don’t really want to say that in so many words.

      4. I think you’ve totally missed the mark on this. First off, your child’s education is not a probalistic hazard that needs to be insured, such as an illness/accident, disability or unemployment. It is an in investment. Further, it is incredibly easy to plan for: you know it starts at 6 years old, or earlier if you want preschool. There’s no uncertainty at all.

        And, even if one buys that reasoning, my main point, in keeping with the point of the article, is that there is no compelling reason to have taxpayers fund your lifestyle choices. Just because most people have kids is not a good reason for everyone to pay for them.

  43. If you’re going to use reducto ad absurdum, make sure it’s actually absurdum.

    For example, in Brazil, employers are legally required to provide meal vouchers for their employees. They are essentially food stamps – you get a special debit card that your employer fills every month, and the card can only be used at restaurants (although there are black market shops you can take to convert to cash at a heavily discounted price). It felt very strange to me as an American working there in a white collar job, making an upper-class salary and still receiving food stamps from my employer (approx. $25/day if you adjust for relative purchasing power).

    Unfortunately, I think that this argument will just convince those who are already on board with free contraception that free lunch should also be required. And, honestly, I think we all would agree with them – if we’re living in a bizarro world where your employer not giving you something is tantamount to prohibiting you from having it, then food would make a ton of sense.

    If you’re doing the reducto ad absurdum, make it something that your opponent wouldn’t actually want. For example, if your employer doesn’t provide a free gun then they are infringing on your second amendment rights.

    1. If you’re doing the reducto ad absurdum, make it something that your opponent wouldn’t actually want. For example, if your employer doesn’t provide a free gun then they are infringing on your second amendment rights.

      Well, if we think of something that progressives don’t think should be free, trust me, you’ll be the first to know.

  44. “So I ask again: By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free but not a compelling interest in making sure all people get food for free? Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?”
    Because (due to history) employers are effectively gate-keepers to medicine for many Americans, but they are not gate-keepers to food.

    That said, I’m pretty sure that in situations where employers are effectively gate-keepers to food, the US Military for example, that those employers are expected/required to provide food options that meet the needs of the employees (such as providing Kosher meals, for example).

    You don’t have to like it to understand it.

    1. The employer isn’t a gatekeeper to birth control. It’s widely available and cheap. Gateway presumes that the ONLY way you can acquire it, is to go through said gatekeeper.

      1. If you want to nit-pick, go for it.

        It doesn’t change that for many Americans a denied claim means no service. It being theoretically possible to still get a service is irrelevant if, for most people, it doesn’t happen.

        Which is why the government did what it did. Because it wasn’t interested in the 100% accurate technical answer, it was interested in the 90% of Americans answer.

        And again, you don’t have to like it to understand it. In fact, if you don’t like it, you really should try to understand it as that increased understanding will better inform your ability to argue against it.

        1. Which is why the government did what it did. Because it wasn’t interested in the 100% accurate technical answer, it was interested in the 90% of Americans answer.

          If it was interested in the 90% of Americans answer, then it wouldn’t have mandated jack shit since 98% of Americans had coverage for birth control or affordable access to it. Go ahead and make the 2% of Americans case based on utilitarian principles you boot licking piece of fascist shit.

    2. The issue has nothing at all to do with anyone having access to contraception (or more correctly abortifacients, as someone has already pointed out).
      The issue is whether the contraception is free.

      If your employer-sponsored health plan doesn’t cover contraception, you can still get a prescription for it and buy it.
      You will have to pay for it.
      And in most cases, that amount will be very little, since most oral contraceptives are generic.
      Anyone who works for Hobby Lobby or any other employer could do this.
      And most employers who had no problem with contraceptives/abortifacients simply wanted to treat them like every other prescription by requiring a co-pay.

      But Progressives cannot abide these drugs being universally available and extremely cheap.
      They want these drugs to be free.
      I’ll let you ponder why this is so important to them (remember, they are not trying to have every prescription drug covered with no co-pay).
      Anyway, it’s the full coverage, not the availability, that is causing the uproar.

  45. Since the government is unjustly prohibiting these women from committing infanticide it seems only just to help them avoid having those babies in the first place….

  46. RE: Why Do We Force Employers to Cover the Full Cost of Birth Control but Not Food?
    Why the contraception but not the meatball sub?

    1. What’s this “we” shit?
    2. We should listen to our obvious betters enslaving us. They got us this far in destroying our country and taxing us into oblivion, so why shouldn’t we let them add another tax?
    3. The State knows more about contraception than all the little people combined.
    Just look how many times The State has fucked us all.

  47. Please stop mixing up contraception and birth control.

    Contraception is any method of preventing sperm from meeting ova. Condoms, hormone pills, spermicide, diaphragms, intra-uterine devices, any method of blocking the fallopian tubes and even hysterectomy. The “morning after pill” (a high dose of regular contraception hormones) is contraception, not birth control.

    Once sperm meets ova (conception) *then* you are in the realm of birth control – controlling when, or if, a birth will occur. This can be drugs intended to block the implantation of a blastocyst or to stop the development at any point between zygote to fetus (fetus transition is commonly accepted to be 8 weeks after conception). Chemical, drug or surgical means of abortion (8 weeks to just prior to natural birth). Birth control can also be used to ensure a viable, live birth, drugs and chemicals to halt a premature birth process – or induce it if overdue – or surgery to extract the child if vaginal birth isn’t possible.

    Hobby Lobby had no issues with *contraception*. What they did not want to be forced to pay for was any *abortifacient* methods of birth control.

  48. This entire debate simply demonstrates why employers should not be buying healthcare for their employees.

    But even if you are for some of this sort of stuff, I think one has to wonder how prescription contraception could possibly be considered a need when OTC pain relievers are not.

    So while all employers must cover in full all forms of prescription contraception for all employees, we can not get reimbursed for ibuprofen through our Flex Spending Accounts.
    No, in fact, you have to guess at the beginning of the year how much you’ll spend on healthcare.
    If you under-guess, you cannot add a penny more during the year.
    And if you don’t use all the funds in the account by the end of the year, you lose it all.
    What a bunch of crap!

    How can anyone really believe the people who write these rules actually care about the citizenry?
    The example above is enough to show they are hurting us more than helping.

  49. How the Supreme Court can find it unlawful to discriminate against employees based on their religion but on the other hand can discriminate against the employees based upon their own religion boggles my mind.

  50. If your free birth control fails then the government should pay 100% of all child expenses. The only question is whether it must be to age 21 or for life.

  51. “Two in three Americans think employers should be required to provide birth control to employees through their health insurance plans, even if the business owner has religious objections to doing so, Pew Research Center reported last week.”

    Libertarian mo…… Ah forget it.

  52. … three-course lunch available daily at a nominal cost.

    Nominal cost? Those oppressive shitlords!

  53. Two out of three supporting this is just depressing. It means IQ alone is no barrier to profound stupidity.

    1. Bryce . even though Samuel `s story is unbelievable… on tuesday I bought a great Peugeot 205 GTi after making $4790 this – four weeks past an would you believe $10k last month . it’s definitly the most-comfortable work Ive ever done . I actually started 4 months ago and right away startad earning more than $85 p/h . find more info

      ……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  54. By what logic does the federal government have a compelling interest in making sure all women get birth control for free but not a compelling interest in making sure all people get food for free?

    Population control, clearly.

  55. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.4cyberworks.com

  56. The elephant in the room is that you don’t need a prescription to eat lunch.

    Why is no one asking why BC pills are not over the counter? They are far safer than a lot of other things you can buy with no restrictions as your local drug store.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.