We object based on the premise that the need for these things is the result of "choice".
So's Viagra. You, and your side, doesn't seem to get the fact that the "choice" is of the woman who owns the body, not by a bunch of middle-aged, white males, who want to ignore the prohibition of the first amendment regarding creation of laws recognizing any establishment, so they may create their own form of an American theocracy.
You do realize, btw, that there's many off-label uses for female contraception, including reduction of the hassle of menopause? Probably not.
First. you can stop the racist crap.
Second. You are 100% correct. Women do own their bodies. And as a condition of that ownership are responsible for their own needs. Get it?
Non is denying anyone anything.
You people just want to have others pay for your choices.
That is not how it works.
We as human beings can choose "to" or choose "not to"..
BTW, That is correct. For males who require things to enhance their performance, they should have to pay for it themselves.
First Amendment? Please. This is a financial issue.
Insurance carriers are already over regulated with federal mandates that require different types of coverage. That is without regard to whether the individual needs the coverage or not.
For example, since you decided to bring up womanhood, I as a man am required to carry coverage on my policy for ovarian cancer and other maladies that affect women only. Yes, it's required by federal mandate.
How much sense does that make?.
It's the same as owning a car and having to insure a motorcycle.
I'd like the choice what to cover and what not to cover.
Now, I will stipulate that if a woman requires medication for non target maladies, then by all means insurance should cover the item as a matter of health concerns.
But, ONLY under a doctor's care and ONLY by prescription.
In other words if "the pill" is recommended for a health reason it should be covered. If it's just for someone who wants to have unprotected sex and not have to worry about the consequences of her actions, then no, I object to that as an insurance mandate. Let her pay for it herself.