“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.
“
Today there were reports that it definitely is cheaper for insurance companies to offer free birth control (cost about $600) than what it would cost them for an actual pregnancy (thousands). So this will make them money in the long run. I strongly suspect that someone in the industry pointed this out to POTUS before he changed his tune.
If I, as a non Catholic, were working at the only hospital in town, I would be darned annoyed if I could not get the same free services that all my friends working elsewhere were able to get. If I were a Catholic I could choose not to use those free services thus maintaining my religious freedom. While people are saying this denies Catholics their rights, I see it as Catholics denying non Catholics their rights if they work at a Catholic hospital. Suppose you worked for a police department and they told you that you could not keep a gun at home, even though all other citizens in your jurisdiction were allowed to do so? Would you be upset your 2nd Amendment rights were being violated?