larryc12 » 24 Jan 2014 7:37 pm wrote:
The problem, as I see it, lies in the fact that taxpayers are required to finance a behavior. Should we finance drunks, drug users, child molesters?
I have a real problem with you categorizing sex as a 'behavior' akin to drinking, drug use and child molestation.
That sounds very much like slut shaming to me.
Sex is a normal natural part of life, and contraception should be a routine part of women's health care.
I don't even understand why this is controversial.
larry: I know you think that providing free-of-charge BC pills will stymie births out of wedlock, but will it? How expensive are BC pills and why aren't they already stymying these births?
Why do you right wingers go right to free?
The issue is whether they should be covered under health insurance, just like any other part of a woman's health care.
The ACA mandates that contraception be covered under the policies that people are paying for.
How is that free?
You can't just go to the drugstore and buy BC pills.
You need to have regular checkups every six months or so to get your prescription renewed.
If you don't have insurance, that costs more than many women can afford.
Myself, I don't have a problem with giving poor women free BC.
It's a lot more cost effective than what it will cost us later on if they have children that they cannot afford to take care of.
One way or another we pay, so I'd opt for the cheaper option.