Hmm. A relatively minor point, but let's experiment. The instigating incident of this article was a woman testifying that "birth control" is not always used for contraception. People in this thread have reiterated that "birth control" is not always used for contraception. I can tell you that I have been on "the Pill" and it was not for contraception. I can link you to an article that includes stories about birth control being necessary as something other than contraception just off the top of my head.pizzazz wrote:I know I'm going to get lots of flak for this, but I feel obligated to point out that there's a free way to prevent pregnancy with 100% success rate (other than rape).
If this was about blood transfusions, or psychiatric medication-- both of which are even more against certain religions-- would you be telling people how easy it is to avoid accidents and not be born with hemophilia, or how exercise and sunshine are free? You are against medical marijuana, right? How about Viagra? They're trying to ban that too, right? I mean, back in the old days, when a guy had "erectile dysfunction", he just stopped having sex. Perfectly free. Natural order of things. So they're making a huge thing out of not covering that, either, right?
What if someone is married and getting pregnant will threaten her life? Should *she* never have sex again? Or should she die in pregnancy or childbirth, leaving her kids and her spouse alone and in poverty? Is that what happens if you don't have the good sense to have money or choose an employer (out of the oh-so-many available) who isn't Catholic?
Are you at least perfectly clear yet that this is not only about women wanting to have sex without getting pregnant--which they damn well have the right to do, but I'm hoping the current pileon has handled that well enough-- but also sometimes about women not wanting to be denied coverage for medication they will DIE or be SERIOUSLY ill WITHOUT?