I think that the insurance companies agreed to this because it costs a lot less to provide free contraception than it does to pay for maternity care, delivery, and family medical care after a child is born. I have a serious problem with any man/religion that says I cannot plan when I will bear children, whether I will be allowed to use contraception, and wants to get rid of WIC programs and other aid to poor women who have children.
“I think that the insurance companies agreed to this because it costs a lot less to provide free contraception than it does to pay for maternity care, delivery, and family medical care after a child is born.”
First, if that’s not coercion, I don’t know what is. Second, it’s abominable social policy. Third, we haven’t actually heard from the health care insurance industry on this—not that they’ll have any say in what the uberadministrators decide.
“I have a serious problem with any man/religion that says I cannot plan when I will bear children . . . “
Who’s forcing you to obey Catholic Church teachings? This isn’t about the issue of birth-control; it’s about forcing any religion, despite the protection of the first amendment, to subvert its own teachings to the whims of government. Don’t forget, a government that can coerce a religion to offer birth-control can also coerce it to offer abortion. Or to cut off the birth-control subsidies and triple the birth-subsidies.
“
Natural family planning is pretty neat.
Where to begin?
“ . . .[I]nsurance companies agreed to this because it costs a lot less to provide free contraception than it does to pay for maternity care, delivery, and family medical care after a child is born.” Really. As simply a practical matter, how difficult is it for ANY woman to obtain contraceptives or contraceptive service; and how expensive is it? The figure is, at this point, $600/yr. An abortion’s cheaper, and it’s a fallback position when the contraceptive fails (NB: 50% of abortions are performed on contraceptive-using females which doesn’t say a lot about the efficacy of some or all contraceptives). The other fallback is childbirth. But how long do you think it’ll take before the fems decide that the OUTCOME’s the guarantee? Meaning that the failed contraceptive requires, requires, mind you, free access to abortion (which by way of this particular piece of executive fiat is also covered by way of the ella pill).
So far, none of this relates to the social engineering portion of this mandate. The Obama administration clearly sees child-reduction as a general and individual good regardless of failed theories (Malthus & Keynes come to mind) and in spite of the fact that reduced population, in light of social security, Medicare, and Medicaid concerns, is anything but a general good! And although certain contraceptives may accomplish certain individual “goods” which are more accurately described as desires (fertilization reduction, menopause-problems, etc.), others cause or stimulate cancer. The use of contraceptives is never win-win, never without some unintended consequence (including pregnancy).
What’s the financial logic behind insuring women for something 99% of them (according to the figures we’ve heard) already use? And if 99% of women are already using contraceptives, why is the cost of women’s insurance continually rising? Surely if that many women are avoiding the higher cost of pregnancy, why isn’t that already built into insurance riders? (I’m guessing, but I’d bet it’s because contraceptives aren’t failsafe, and insurance companies can’t know which users will be affected—whether by type of contraceptive or diligence in taking it.) No, insurance rates are not going to drop because of contraceptive-use.
There’s so much more, but let me get to your last point. In case you haven’t picked it up from numerous other posts or elsewhere, NO ONE’s preventing you from using whatever birth control method you’d like. This isn’t an argument about YOUR individual freedom of choice. But, if you go to a Catholic hospital (or attend a Catholic university), you’ll have to pay for it yourself or buy what’s bound to be really cheap or free (if we beleive all the govt. spokesmen) contraceptive insurance. The big argument is about FORCING A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION or AN INDIVIDUAL corporation or person with religious objections TO OFFER something, anything, he or it finds abhorrent or anathema to his/its religious beliefs. It’s exactly the same thing as forcing a religious institution (or individual) to refrain from quoting the Bible, singing hymns, having Christmas displays, wearing crosses or yarmulke, using publicly supplied water for baptisms, writing letters of a religious nature to magazines or newspapers, or appearing on television to advance any particularly religious view. Or forcing them to replace their crucifixes with golden calves! It ABRIDGES THE FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U. S. CONSTITUTION.
As to where poor women go for care of already-born children, the Church, without government assistance, has been doing it for centuries. With respect to “unwanted” or unmarried, or teen pregnancies (all of which grew exponentially since the introduction of “the pill”), the Catholic Church and many other religious institutions offer full pregnancy care and adoption services, orphanages, and foster care.