SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9450)2/16/2012 3:34:07 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (2) of 85487
 
1 - AS longshort points out, they already do.

2 - There shouldn't be any significant number of extra children. Contraception is affordable for the people in question, and they will still be paying for it even if its required to be part of insurance.

Most people who don't want children will either use contraception covered or not, or won't use it, or use it carelessly covered or not. There are not extra children for them to pay for.

Remember what the situation is here. No one (at least no one involved in this current issue) is talking about banning contraception, or even taxing it. If they don't want children, and are careful and disciplined enough to use contraception effectively in the first place, than they can simply buy it without any coverage.

On the side of not forcing the mandate you have general liberty concerns, constitutional questions, and also religious liberty concerns. On the other side you have essentially nothing of any serious consequence.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News