Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9481)	2/16/2012 6:07:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

The issue isn't "offering free contraceptives", for several reasons. The contraceptives in question would not be free, the cost is covered as part of the employees compensation, so they don't get them for free.. Also other people already offer free or reduced price contraceptives. Most of all forcing someone to pay for it is a different issue than having it provided for free, anyone can provide it at their own cost if they want. Forcing some specific third party to pay for it is an attack on their freedom and beliefs, and also expands the federal governments powers beyond its constitutional limits. I think it would be much bigger Your talking about only people who work for Catholic organizations, and don't directly work in the Church itself. Then you have to exclude those who work for organizations under lose Catholic control, that would offer contraceptive coverage even if they where not forced to. Then exclude the men, which cuts it about in half. Then exclude those who aren't sexually active (a very small number in the long term, but there will be a much larger number who just don't have sex for a time), and those who want to have children in the near term (a larger number), and those that choose not to use contraception (a small number). Then you have to exclude all those that will use contraception whether or not its covered, and those who won't use contraception (or won't use it a significant amount of the time, or will use it carelessly) because of carelessness whether or not its covered. People who wouldn't use it because its not covered would not only be a tiny number of people, it would also tend to be the people who would use it less consistently and responsibly if it is covered. Then you have to exclude the people who were not previously excluded, and would not use contraception, but would just not happen to get pregnant anyway, as well as the people who didn't specifically plan for a pregnancy, but would be capable of dealing with it, and reasonably happy that it happened anyway. What your left with could be zero. It certainly won't be a major number. Not the type of number you take significant hits to freedom and the rule of law in order to cover.