# Everyone in the USA has access to birth control **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 6, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976 "2012-03-06T22:19:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/61 "2012-03-07T19:57:07Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Most companies require their employees to pay some portion of insurance costs out of pocket. Howsabout we just say the the birth control comes out of MY contribution? That work for you? It’s to be provided at no cost. So the no cost portion could be said to be from you. 😃 The angry-children that run the Catholic Church are being such assholes because they want to control women. They even want to allow generic business owners to deny birth control coverage for women. It’s just them being evil. The insurance company is what’s providing the birth control coverage, not the church. That’s a fact and everyone crying about this are either ignorant or pretending to be upset to further some goal. I assume that goal is to increase the number of women who are afraid to have sex. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/62 "2012-03-07T19:58:20Z")
Sure, providing you reduce the Catholics’ payments by the same amount overall. But that sort of defeats the purpose of the Obamacare stipulation that hormonal birth control must be provided by health insurance. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/63 "2012-03-07T20:02:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure, providing you reduce the Catholics’ payments by the same amount overall. But that sort of defeats the purpose of the Obamacare stipulation that hormonal birth control must be provided by health insurance. > > Regards, > Shodan Presumably they are reducing the cost by _free_. Since it is to cost the end user _free_. That is to say, it is required to absorbed by the insurance company in any case. And insurance companies don’t mind this, because it _saves them money_. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/64 "2012-03-07T20:13:14Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Do you really not see the difference between giving someone money and then that person spending it to, say, buy crack, and giving the person crack? > > People who receive moeny, as a salary, from a Catholic institution can use the money to pay an abortion, it is different to pmake the Church pay for the abortion. > > Are there those many women who work in 50+ employee companies that also have access to a health plan but that don’t have enough money for BC? We haven’t, as a society, decided that paying for crack is an acceptable use of societal resources. We have decided that defense spending, bridges, and health care are expenses for which we can spread/share the costs. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/65 "2012-03-07T20:21:11Z")
In a previous thread, we already established that you can buy generic birth control pills at Target or Wal-mart for $9 a month. From what I seen the best approach to lowering the cost of the BC pills is to make at less some types of birth control pills available as over the counter medication. I found out that this already done in Mexico and Spain. I read one article that we should at least make the progestin-only mini-pill available for OTC BC. There seems to be less side effects. When you work it out on a monthly basis, then it looks like an implant like Implanon is the cheapest. It might be nice if someone worked out a monthly plan to pay for it. Maybe the Gates foundation could come with a public domain version you could buy for $30 dollars? ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/66 "2012-03-07T20:28:04Z")
You can. Maybe. If that particular formulation works for you. Me, I like to work with my doctor to find the right drug, and then I expect my insurance company to cover it, since that’s what I pay\* them for. I’m crazy like that. \*And again, let’s be very clear about this… I PAY THEM. My employer covers some of it as part of my compensation, and then I cover the rest out of pocket. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/67 "2012-03-07T20:45:53Z")
> [@Dangerosa](#): > > We haven’t, as a society, decided that paying for crack is an acceptable use of societal resources. We have decided that defense spending, bridges, and health care are expenses for which we can spread/share the costs. But we haven’t decided, as a society, that your right to have me share the costs of your hormonal birth control trumps my freedom of conscience. That’s what the thread is about. ISTM that if the government is going to order me to do something, if at all possible there ought to be some kind of “conscientious objector” status that can be applied for good-faith objections. Especially when the government is attempting to expand its power, as is nearly unavoidable as it becomes even more involved in providing health care and mandating how it is delivered and paid for. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/68 "2012-03-07T20:55:27Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > In a previous thread, we already established that you can buy generic birth control pills at Target or Wal-mart for $9 a month. From what I seen the best approach to lowering the cost of the BC pills is to make at less some types of birth control pills available as over the counter medication. Would this be an acceptable solution for everyone? Making hormonal BC OTC? Obviously cost is not an issue. If they are OTC, then availability will not be an issue. Can we do the same for viagra-like products? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/69 "2012-03-07T20:58:39Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You are misinformed. The rule says that if they provide health insurance, they may not provide the birth control. It is instead provided by the insurance company at no cost. Why not do some research on this? You’re obviously upset about it, but you’re upset at phantoms that don’t exist. I saw no reason to respond to this argument because it’s already been shot down by others quite thoroughly in the other threads dealing with the topic of birth control. Obama initially declared that religious employers would be forced to buy insurance plans that included coverage of all forms of birth control with no copay, then “compromised” by saying that the insurance companies would pay for birth control. But if the employer purchases the insurance and then the insurance company provides the cost of birth control, the employer is obviously the one paying for the birth control; the insurance company is just a middle man and will obviously pass along any price increase to the employer. Moreover, you seem to assume that religious institutions and insurers are necessarily distinct. They are not. Some religious bodies have created their own insurance companies to protect their employees, and those insurance companies are functionally part of the religious body. So if insurance companies have their decision-making freedom stripped away on this issue, then some religious institutions have had their freedom-making decision stripped away. > [@](#): > > Catholic Bishops are trying to use their position as employers to deny women birth control, atholic bishops are not trying to do any such thing. They are trying to preserve the freedom of their own church, not to prevent anyone else from making a free decision. Refusing to pay for someone else’s decision to make a purchase is not denying anyone the freedom to make the purchase, and it won’t be no matter how often you say it is. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/70 "2012-03-07T21:00:02Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Would this be an acceptable solution for everyone? Making hormonal BC OTC? Obviously cost is not an issue. If they are OTC, then availability will not be an issue. > > Can we do the same for viagra-like products? Birth control should be available via insurance. It prevents a huge healthcare expense (pregnancy). It is also used to treat some non-pregnancy medial conditions. The Catholics are throwing a tantrum because they hate the idea of women having sex without the fear of pregnancy. This is in no way forcing them to provide coverage. The coverage is being provided by the insurance companies. Capitulating to people who are attempting to codify their religious beliefs into law is wrong. Catholics are the ones being evil here. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/71 "2012-03-07T21:06:31Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Capitulating to people who are attempting to codify their religious beliefs into law is wrong. Catholics are the ones being evil here. I agree that trying paint these people as paragons of virtue is ridiculous, but I am just thinking of a practical solution. Why would these available by prescription only? What purpose does that serve? ---
**Author:** ![Dogzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@Dogzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogzilla)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/72 "2012-03-07T21:06:39Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Would this be an acceptable solution for everyone? Making hormonal BC OTC? Obviously cost is not an issue. If they are OTC, then availability will not be an issue. > > Can we do the same for viagra-like products? Sure, but I’m not letting some WalMart employee insert my next IUD. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/73 "2012-03-07T21:10:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I saw no reason to respond to this argument because it’s already been shot down by others quite thoroughly You are incorrect. It hasn’t. Shoot it down if you can. > [@](#): > > in the other threads dealing with the topic of birth control. Obama initially declared that religious employers would be forced to buy insurance plans that included coverage of all forms of birth control with no copay, then “compromised” by saying that the insurance companies would pay for birth control. But if the employer purchases the insurance and then the insurance company provides the cost of birth control, the employer is obviously the one paying for the birth control; the insurance company is just a middle man and will obviously pass along any price increase to the employer. You are wrong. The coverage is required to be at zero cost. So it is being absorbed by the insurance company. This is good for them because it saves them money. A birth can easily be over ten grand. The insurance company saves money by providing birth control. > [@](#): > > Moreover, you seem to assume that religious institutions and insurers are necessarily distinct. They are not. Some religious bodies have created their own insurance companies to protect their employees, and those insurance companies are functionally part of the religious body. So if insurance companies have their decision-making freedom stripped away on this issue, then some religious institutions have had their freedom-making decision stripped away. If a religious company wants to work in the secular world it is required to obey laws. Catholics are required to obey minimum wage laws despite the fact that they found slavery as acceptable. If a Catholic company wants to insure people it should be required to obey the standard laws. And this doesn’t apply to actual churches. Just secular companies that Churches own. If a church runs a hospital, it has put a foot in the temporal realm and should be run by normal laws. Now, I haven’t heard what the particular idea to deal with self-insuring companies was to be. So if you know, I’d appreciate a link. Preferably to a reputable source. > [@](#): > > atholic bishops are not trying to do any such thing. They are trying to preserve the freedom of their own church, not to prevent anyone else from making a free decision. Refusing to pay for someone else’s decision to make a purchase is not denying anyone the freedom to make the purchase, and it won’t be no matter how often you say it is. They aren’t paying for anything. They are paying zero. The insurance company is paying. I know you have no intention of accepting this fact, but that’s your choice. ---
**Author:** ![Dangerosa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/74 "2012-03-07T21:49:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > But we haven’t decided, as a society, that your right to have me share the costs of your hormonal birth control trumps my freedom of conscience. That’s what the thread is about. > > ISTM that if the government is going to order me to do something, if at all possible there ought to be some kind of “conscientious objector” status that can be applied for good-faith objections. Especially when the government is attempting to expand its power, as is nearly unavoidable as it becomes even more involved in providing health care and mandating how it is delivered and paid for. > > Regards, > Shodan 28 states have mandated this for years. And the debate isn’t about birth control for many of us, it’s about health care for women. I’m one of many women who spent years on birth control during periods of abstinence for non birth control reasons. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/75 "2012-03-07T22:19:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > You are wrong. The coverage is required to be at zero cost. So it is being absorbed by the insurance company. That is meaningless. When a church or any other employer purchases health insurance for an employee, the employer pays a certain amount for the entire insurance package; coverage for birth control is not itemized separately. Insurance companies could simply set their rates higher. Unless President Obama is planning to make it illegal for insurance companies to charge any rate but what they did charge prior to the ruling going into effect, there’s no way to prevent the insurance companies from responding to the birth control order by increasing their rates. > [@](#): > > The insurance company saves money by providing birth control. (A) Cite please? (B) If your claim is true, then why does President Obama need to force the insurance companies to provide all forms of birth control with no copay? Why weren’t they already doing so based on the profit motive? > [@](#): > > If a religious company wants to work in the secular world it is required to obey laws. Catholics are required to obey minimum wage laws despite the fact that they found slavery as acceptable. If a Catholic company wants to insure people it should be required to obey the standard laws. First of all, when you say Catholics “found slavery acceptable” is incorrect. The Catholic Church has always been opposed to slavery. Secondly, the Constitution says that the federal government can’t make any law that abridges the free expression of religious belief. Obama’s new law does that, and is thus unconstitutional, and as others have pointed out there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court will strike it down. (Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the entirety of the insurance mandate out, which may happen.) > [@](#): > > And this doesn’t apply to actual churches. Just secular companies that Churches own. Cite, please? Where exactly in the text of what Obama has provided does it say that churches (which employ over fifty) are exempt from the law? Can you quote the part? ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/76 "2012-03-07T22:57:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Cite, please? Where exactly in the text of what Obama has provided does it say that churches (which employ over fifty) are exempt from the law? Can you quote the part? Here ya go: > [@](#): > > In response to these comments, the Departments amended the interim > final regulations to provide HRSA with discretion to establish an > exemption for group health plans established or maintained by certain > religious employers (and any group health insurance coverage provided > in connection with such plans) with respect to any requirement to cover > contraceptive services that they would otherwise be required to cover > without cost sharing consistent with the HRSA Guidelines. The amended > interim final regulations were issued and effective on August 1, > 2011.\3\ The amended interim final regulations specified that, for > purposes of this exemption, a religious employer is one that: (1) Has > the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily > employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves > persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit > organization described in section 6033(a)(1) and section > 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and > (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and > conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively > religious activities of any religious order. In the HRSA Guidelines, > HRSA exercised its discretion under the amended interim final > regulations such that group health plans established and maintained by > these religious employers (and any group health insurance coverage > provided in connection with such plans) are not required to cover > contraceptive services. Cite: [http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=25828&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=2](http://webapps.dol.gov/FederalRegister/HtmlDisplay.aspx?DocId=25828&AgencyId=8&DocumentType=2) ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/77 "2012-03-07T22:58:13Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > That is meaningless. When a church or any other employer purchases health insurance for an employee, the employer pays a certain amount for the entire insurance package; coverage for birth control is not itemized separately. No shit. The service is provided at no cost. This means the cost is absorbed by the insurer. > [@](#): > > Insurance companies could simply set their rates higher. Unless President Obama is planning to make it illegal for insurance companies to charge any rate but what they did charge prior to the ruling going into effect, there’s no way to prevent the insurance companies from responding to the birth control order by increasing their rates. Insurance companies are required to spend some fraction of what the take in on care. > [@](#): > > (A) Cite please? (B) If your claim is true, then why does President Obama need to force the insurance companies to provide all forms of birth control with no copay? Why weren’t they already doing so based on the profit motive? [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/) I suspect because they’re afraid of pissing off the crazy religious people in this country. > [@](#): > > First of all, when you say Catholics “found slavery acceptable” is incorrect. The Catholic Church has always been opposed to slavery. That is not true. Slavery existed when the Catholic church had the right to burn people in public. The idea that they wanted to stop it is silly. [Catholic Church and slavery - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery) > [@](#): > > Secondly, the Constitution says that the federal government can’t make any law that abridges the free expression of religious belief. Obama’s new law does that, and is thus unconstitutional, It does not do that. You are incorrect. As I said, you are simply misinformed about this issue. I, for one, would appreciate it if you stopped spreading your misinformation. The Church is required to do nothing. Private businesses they own, if they want to provide health care insurance, don’t provide birth control. It is provided at no cost by the Insurance Company. > [@](#): > > and as others have pointed out there’s a good chance that the Supreme Court will strike it down. (Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t throw the entirety of the insurance mandate out, which may happen.) You are speculating based on a fantasy view of the issue that is not true. > [@](#): > > Cite, please? Where exactly in the text of what Obama has provided does it say that churches (which employ over fifty) are exempt from the law? Can you quote the part? You accept the EWTN as a source: [http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=118307](http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=118307) > [@](#): > > Smith: Back in August, the Department of Health and Human Services issued the mandate which requires all group health plans in the United States to pay for contraception, sterilization, and certain drugs that can cause an abortion. That mandate contains a very narrow exemption, and the exemption would permit a very few number of churches and religious orders to be exempted from its requirements. > > The exemption from the mandate has four prongs: the religious employer must (1) have the primary purpose of inculcating religious values, (2) primarily employ people of its own faith, (3) primarily serve people of its own faith, and (4) fall within a certain tax-code provision (that it’s tax exempt, and it doesn’t have to file tax returns in the United States). So, it is a very narrow exemption that basically means very few religious entities will be exempted from the mandate. This only applies to secular businesses that churches own. Like hospitals or colleges. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/78 "2012-03-07T23:55:16Z")
> [@spooje](#): > > Would this be an acceptable solution for everyone? Making hormonal BC OTC? Obviously cost is not an issue. If they are OTC, then availability will not be an issue. > > Can we do the same for viagra-like products? I have no idea why I should require other people to subsidize my erections or why I should subsidize other people erections. I haven’t done any studies on whether Viagra is safe enough for OTC use. I don’t think Viagra should be covered under medical insurance at all. Obviously no solution is going to be acceptable to everybody. All you can do is come up with a solution that pisses off the least number of people. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/79 "2012-03-08T01:47:11Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Most companies require their employees to pay some portion of insurance costs out of pocket. Howsabout we just say the the birth control comes out of MY contribution? That work for you? If the insurance company reduced your payment by, say, $3 with the condition that you take their special, personal, $3 birth control plan, it wouldn’t be a problem. > [@Dangerosa](#): > > We haven’t, as a society, decided that paying for crack is an acceptable use of societal resources. We have decided that defense spending, bridges, and health care are expenses for which we can spread/share the costs. Really? That’s the part you find useful to fight? Replace crack for porn magazines, abortions, motels to have sex with my same-sex lover, cigarrettes, alcohol, bread. The difference between paying directly and being only indirectly involved are very clear. * * * Also, what happened to “keep the government out of the bedroom”? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2012, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976/80 "2012-03-08T01:53:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Insurance companies are required to spend some fraction of what the take in on care. Hence when the amount they spend on birth control, when it’s counted as “care”, increases, the amount they can charge also increases. > [@](#): > > [http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/](http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/07/study-shows-birth-control-saves-taxpayer-money/) The link is to a prediction that government programs promoting birth control will save taxpayer money. Anyone can predict any facts for the future; that doesn’t prove that those same facts were true for situations where insurance companies gave away birth control for no copay. > [@](#): > > That is not true. Slavery existed when the Catholic church had the right to burn people in public. The idea that they wanted to stop it is silly. It’s silly to believe that the Catholic Church wanted to stop slavery? Here are some links to Papal Encyclicals and other official documents about slavery: > **[Sublimis Deus On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm)** > > To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come, health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction. Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians > **[In Supremo Apostolatus - Papal Encyclicals](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg16/g16sup.htm)** > > Placed at the summit of the Apostolic power and, although lacking in merits, holding the place of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, Who, being made Man through utmost Charity, deigned to die for the Redemption of the World, We … Continue reading → > **[Catholicae Ecclesiae On Slavery in the Missions - Papal Encyclicals](http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13slv.htm)** > > To the Catholic Missionaries in Africa. The maternal love of the Catholic Church embraces all people. On Slavery in the Missions of Pope Leo XIII. Doesn’t look silly to me. > [@](#): > > You accept the EWTN as a source: [http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=118307](http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=118307) I’ve addressed this topic in the other thread on the birth control issue, so I won’t repeat myself here. > [@](#): > > This only applies to secular businesses that churches own. Like hospitals or colleges. Hospitals and colleges that churches own are obviously neither secular nor businesses. They re religious non-profits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/everyone-in-the-usa-has-access-to-birth-control/614976.md?page=5)