[Conscience of a Conservative]

Again, she was talking about hormonal birth control and lying about the costs. She said nothing about condoms. The cost of condoms is irrelevant - she was talking about how much hormonal birth control cost without insurance coverage, and (to my knowledge, at least).

Jumping from "Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school" (her statement) to an assumption that 'hormonal contraceptives don't cost that much, so she must have been talking about condoms, which means that she must be using 60 condoms a day' is not "connecting the dots." It's making a gigantic leap.

[brytlea]

Well, no, if hormonal birth control, which we all know is taken at a set dose and is not taken per sexual encounter, does NOT cost the amount she mentioned, then we would have to assume she is either lying, doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or is talking about some other type which *could* cost that much. Any sort of birth control that is used per time *could* cost that much if you had a whole lot of sex. Why is that not connecting the dots?