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 (9833)2/19/2012 8:52:38 PM
From: TimF2 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) of 85487
 
So separation of church and state is okay - as long as you agree to their terms, but if they go against what I find important, that's my tough luck?

What are you talking about?

The policy being pushed by the government is the opposite of separation of church and state, its the state imposing on the church.

Just because 99% of women use it at some time - that doesn't mean for a second they use it all the time.

Few use it for a very short time, there isn't any point to do so, unlike barrier methods, which might reasonable be used once right when its needed, hormonal methods require time to be fully effective, and if your going to generally have them work for you you have to keep them going as a steady thing. If 99 percent of people every use them, and most of that use is for years (with essentially all at least for months), they are pretty widely available thing. Even without that particular sign, its obvious that availability isn't much of a problem (and if it was, we should aim at the biggest availability barrier, the requirement for a prescription).

Even the poor can afford contraception (at least if they are people with enough foresight and discipline to have contraception be that effective for them anyway), and if they couldn't pay the regular price, there are all sorts of free or reduced price options available to them.

The people here are not even "the poor" (although they would also have cheaper solutions available, its not like Planned Parenthood does a background check on you, and kicks you out the door without any contraception if your above the poverty line), they are people with solid jobs with insurance. They can easily afford contraception. And this isn't even really a benefit to them (at least not much of one) since the premium is part of their compensation. More coverage requirements causes higher premium costs to the company, which overall over time results in lower pay (lower than it otherwise would have been, not necessarily lower in absolute terms, other things might drive pay up.)

Seriously who in the US, covered or not, that isn't a minor (and they have access as well) and isn't severely cognitively deficient, doesn't have access to contraception? Essentially no one. Contraception is all over the place and quite affordable.

So no one is even getting a benefit from this (except perhaps the benefit of being able to force their ideas on to others, which might prove satisfying).
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext