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.
My racist crap? The fact remains that the House panel, advising on the Blunt amendment, consisted of six, middle aged, white men. Women were excluded from that august panel, in spite of it being their right to decide. BTW, so were the research doctors from The National Institutes of Health, who proposed that reproductive planning be part of the Health Insurance Reform Act, for reasons of good public policy.
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.
So middle aged, white males are the ones to decide public policy regarding preventative care, when it comes to areas of reproduction, and women don't have anything to add on the issue?
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.
The Blunt amendment didn't even bother to address those popular penile dysfunction drugs. Your selective outrage over female contraceptives, and ignorance of their off-label use shows that you want this to be a political football, rather than a public health policy issue.
First Amendment? Please. This is a financial issue.
So why did that congressional panel come with religious collars on?
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.
Of course they're regulated. Many insurance carriers have tried to deny coverage to people with melanoma because their clients had zit treatment in their teens. Insurance is shared risk. I'm sure that many priests are covered by policies which also cover pregnancy and childbirth. If you have an issue with that shared risk, you should have brought it up with your carrier, about 60 years ago.
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.
So the Amish don't drive, so why should they support regulations that require safe seatbelts? Sorry, but I never heard them bitch about a law that is for the public good.
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.
So Blunt's amendment makes those distinctions in what way? Would you include those woman who had a history of high-risk pregnancies, still wanting to bop their belly, with the one they love? Would you also demand that those women who really want a kid, to be denied fertility treatments, since that too is a choice?
