Answer by Palaeologus
"This is a little like refusing to give their employees the portion of their paychecks they were going to use before birth control."
True enough, if you wanted the birth control.
Guess what? Not everyone needs that in his health care plan.
Employees who cost more to insure collect less in wages. Being over-insured is not a good thing.
I don't suppose my parents would currently prefer more expensive health care plans that subsidize birth control at the cost of wage growth. I'd bet that people who get their insurance through a spouse wouldn't be too keen on their employer expanding coverage and limiting wages, either. That 35 year-old dude you know with the 5 kids and the vasectomy? This might not benefit him. I also suspect that gay and lesbian employees might not make out like bandits on this one.
The other commenters are right that this is about more than bad policy.
But if you are talking with someone who couldn't care less about religious liberty, there is some ammo.
maureen dirienzo: I would question why birth control is even considered "health care". Fertility is not a disease. Birth control is a life style decision. The feminists have worked long and hard to make contraception a "right" to which they must have "access", meaning someone else should pay for it. If you can pay for your ipad, pay for your pills.
Sandy: Moreover one could question whether, on balance, The Pill has done anything positive for anyone's health, since it carries with it increased risk of breast and other cancers, as well as heart attack and stroke, and is a big part of the reason for the spread of STDs. This is an ideological issue pure and simple.
Join Ricochet or Sign In to add your comment.