# Obama Admin. violating 1st amendment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2012, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878 "2012-11-13T13:21:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/81 "2012-11-14T00:57:35Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > The analogy is flawed. An apartment complex cannot exclude mixed race couples but they don’t have to subsidize their rent. Apartment complex owners whose religious beliefs include opposition to miscegenation are being forced to subsidize something against their religious beliefs when they are not allowed to exclude mixed-race couples. They are being required to devote their resources and their landlordly services to providing living quarters to such a couple, _which they consider an abomination_. The fact that they’re getting paid for complying with abomination doesn’t mean that they’re not being forced by the government to support something against their religious views. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/82 "2012-11-14T01:06:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > So what? The church is not able to prevent someone from using birth control. Contrast that with an apartment complex that refuses to rent to a mixed couple. The apartment complex is not preventing the couple from cohabiting, unless it’s the only apartment complex in the area. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/83 "2012-11-14T02:08:01Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I don’t.That is the thing though; offering birth control is net cost savings for insurance companies, that’s why they haven’t objected to picking up the tab. Fewer pregnancies is cheaper than providing monthly pills. Valid point…I didn’t think about it that way. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/84 "2012-11-14T02:13:03Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Apartment complex owners whose religious beliefs include opposition to miscegenation are being forced to subsidize something against their religious beliefs when they are not allowed to exclude mixed-race couples. > > They are being required to devote their resources and their landlordly services to providing living quarters to such a couple, _which they consider an abomination_. The fact that they’re getting paid for complying with abomination doesn’t mean that they’re not being forced by the government to support something against their religious views. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The apartment complex is not preventing the couple from cohabiting, unless it’s the only apartment complex in the area. You are both stretching this analogy way too far. The apartment owners aren’t subsidizing anything. Also, the apartment complex is deliberatly trying to exclude those people from renting their units. The parallel would be not hiring anyone on birth control. I certainly wouldn’t put that past the church but that is different from not wanting to _subsidize_ the use of contraceptives. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/85 "2012-11-14T02:17:31Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Perhaps you are right. Does anyone have a good cite on this. **EverwonderWhy** stated that 28 states require religious institutions that serve and hire people of other faiths to include birth control in their drug plans. Are these institutions required to provide drug plans currently? I have a hard time believing that these institutions are upset about being forced to do something that they are already doing. Catholic Charities of California and of[New York](http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/us-supreme-court-denies-review-new-york-law-requiring-insurers-cover-contracept)took their objections to the contraceptive coverage mandate to the state supreme court. Both the California and New York Supreme Courts upheld the mandate. The New York Supreme court: > [@](#): > > concluding that a neutral law designed to advance both women’s health and the equal treatment of men and women.\*\* That court also held that “when a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers it must, at least to some degree, be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit.”\*\* and _again_ from my previous cite, The California Supreme Court in their strongly worded decision: > [@](#): > > “This case does not implicate internal church governance; it implicates the relationship between a nonprofit pubic benefit corpora **tion and its employees, most of whom do not belong to the Catholic Church. Only those who join a church impliedly consent to its religious governance on matters of faith and discipline**.” Moreover, the court found the law to be narrowly tailored to serve the state’s compelling interest in eliminating gender discrimination. According to the court, a religiously affiliated organization not meeting the law’s requirements “becomes subject to the same obligations that apply to all other employers.” Catholic Charities appealed both decisions to the US Supreme Court _which declined to review it._ Since then many Catholic affiliated institutions became self-insured to work around the mandate. [The HHS preventive care mandate of the PPACA](http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8219.pdf)\* does not exempt\* self-insured religious affiliated institutions from contraceptive coverage, but allows for insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to employees of self-insured religiously affiliated institutions. Employers do not choose what their prescriptions drug benefit covers. They may negotiate what percentage is covered for prescriptions drugs, but the insurance company may determines specific drug coverage based on their formulary. Do you think an employer who is a scientologist can exempt antidepressants from prescriptions drug coverage? NO, not if they cover prescription drug coverage as part of their health benefit package. Do you think a vegetarian/vegan employer who has moral issue with eating animals can exempt drugs that treat high cholesterol, diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases? Or require their employers to prove their high cholesterol, diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases are congenital and not the result of consuming animal products in order to get their treatment covered? NO As to the miscegenation belief and renting apartment to mixed race couple, I think a better analogy would be - can an employer deny spousal health benefits to one partner of the mixed race marriage, if the employer believes that miscegenation is a sin? When the employees benefit package includes spousal benefits? NO ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/86 "2012-11-14T04:34:15Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Does anyone have a good cite on this. **EverwonderWhy** stated that 28 states require religious institutions that serve and hire people of other faiths to include birth control in their drug plans. Are these institutions required to provide drug plans currently? I have a hard time believing that these institutions are upset about being forced to do something that they are already doing. To clarify, I stated: > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > In 28 states, private employers that include prescription drug benefits and outpatient health services can not exclude contraceptives from coverage, as a gender equity issue. > > Religious exemptions are provided for organizations that operate primarily in faith based capacities and only employ people of that faith (e.g. Churches) > > Religious affiliated institutions that do not primarily operate in faith based capacities (e.g. Hospitals and Universities) and employ and serve people of all faiths are not exempt. > . The HHS mandate follows California and New York precedent in defining exemptions as I stated above. [State Policies in Brief: Insurance Coverage of Contraceptives](http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ICC.pdf) > [@](#): > > In December 2000, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made it clear that an employer’s failure to provide coverage of contraception, when it covers other prescription drugs and preventive care, is a violation of protections against sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; those protections for employees’ benefits include no exemption for religious employers. Of the 28 states that require private employers to provide contraception coverage when it covers prescription drugs and preventive care,\* 8 states provide no exemptions.\* The remaining 20 states allow exemptions in the following manner: > [@](#): > >  3 states include a “limited” refusal clause that allows only churches and church associations to refuse to provide coverage, and does not permit hospitals or other entities to do so. > >  7 states include a “broader” refusal clause that allows churches, associations of churches, religiously affiliated elementary and secondary schools, and, potentially, some religious charities and universities to refuse, but not hospitals. > >  9 states include an “expansive” refusal clause that allows religious organizations, including at least some hospitals, to refuse to provide coverage; 2 of these states also exempt secular organizations with moral or religious > objections. (An additional state, Nevada, does not exempt any employers but allows religious insurers to refuse to provide coverage; 2 other states exempt insurers in addition to employers.) > >  14 of the 20 states with exemptions require employees to be notified when their health plan does not cover contraceptives. > >  4 states attempt to provide access for employees when their employer refuses to offer contraceptive coverage, generally by allowing employees to purchase the coverage on their own, but at the group rate. The reason the [California](http://www.aclu.org/reproductive-freedom/supreme-court-denies-review-california-law-requiring-employers-provide-prescrip) (and New York law) are notable: > [@](#): > > The law in question requires employers that offer health insurance policies with prescription drug benefits to include coverage for prescription contraceptives. The law exempts religious employers, such as churches, mosques, and temples, whose main purpose is to promote religious doctrine and who primarily employ and serve people who share their religious beliefs. > > The California case was closely watched nationwide because the Act’s exemption has been viewed as a model for ensuring expanded health care coverage and protecting religious liberty. > > Throughout its legal challenge, Catholic Charities conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. And it is the language and exemptions of the California and New York laws that the HHS mandate mirrors. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/87 "2012-11-14T05:02:29Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > … I have a hard time believing that these institutions are upset about being forced to do something that they are already doing. Not the bestest of cites but, > [@](#): > > An Obamacare provision that requires employer-based insurers to cover birth control took effect this week, allowing millions of women to access contraception without a co-pay. Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical school, recently joined several religious institutions in a lawsuit fighting the rule. > > But as it turns out, Wheaton “inadvertently” covered emergency contraceptive before it invoked the religious freedom argument against Obamacare and managed to drop the provision from its insurance plans in April, well after the uproar began. The Huffington Post reports that Wheaton “tried to scramble to get rid of that coverage in order to qualify” for a one-year exemption for religious institutions: … > > [http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/03/637031/wheaton-college-covered-emergency-contraception/](http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/08/03/637031/wheaton-college-covered-emergency-contraception/) CMC ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/88 "2012-11-14T05:48:22Z")
> [@FriarTed](#): > > there is a perception that the mandate includes implantation-prevention methods and morning-after medications that can be regarded as abortifacients. Just for the record, the morning after pill isn’t an abortifacient. I bring this up because a lot of people erroneously think it is. It works by preventing ovulation and fertilization. Once fertilization happens, there’s no evidence it prevents implantation. That’s why it has to be taken so soon after sex. Once fertilization has occurred, it’s pretty much worthless. People confuse it with RU-486, which does terminate pregnancy. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/89 "2012-11-14T12:45:07Z")
> [@SouthernGuy](#): > > [Hobby Lobby Sues Obama Admin Over Pro-Abortion HHS Mandate - LifeNews.com](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/12/hobby-lobby-sues-obama-admin-over-pro-abortion-hhs-mandate/) > > [Hobby Lobby Faces Liberal Boycott After Suing Over HHS Mandate - LifeNews.com](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/09/17/hobby-lobby-faces-liberal-boycott-after-suing-over-hhs-mandate/) > > [Bishop: Catholic Church Will Defy Obama Abortion-HHS Mandate - LifeNews.com](http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/12/bishop-catholic-church-will-defy-obama-abortion-hhs-mandate/) > > It seems to me here that the Obama Administration is violating the first amendment by forcing Christian business owners to provide a medical benefit to employees that go against their faith(such as contraceptives) or face paying a hefty fine per day. All this leaves them with is the choice to violate their own religious beliefs to keep profiting or being fined into Oblivion. I’m an Atheist and this does not sit right with me as far as rights go. Insurance is part of a person’s pay, so they should be able to use their money anyway they wish. No one is forceing anyone who doesn’t want to use it. Not allowing a person to use Birth control is adding to poverty or abusing childern (in some cases). One need look to Haiti and the Sudan and see the results of where birth control is not used, also there was a man who helped a lot of people out of poverty by providing and showing how a family of 4 could live healthier and better lives than one of 6 or more He taught them how to use a condom to lower the chances of conception! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/90 "2012-11-14T12:58:10Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That’s not the term I’d use. If you believe everyone should have access to the same benefits, I don’t see why it matters that in this case the employer just doesn’t want to pay for it. > > Including something in a health insurance policy is not advocating its use, nor is it advocating for sinful behavior because a lot of women don’t even use birth control pills for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy. And religious institutions aren’t even paying for it, the health insurers are. Maybe the government will extend that policy to employers who object to providing this coverage on religious grounds as they did with religious organizations, or maybe they’ll tell them to go fuck themselves. I think I am fine with either one. This brings to my mind the idea of: if a company or religious institution hires some one who uses part of it’s pay to aquire birth control or even say a fire arm to kill some one, then, is the employer paying for that? It sounds like a way a religion wants to force it’s beliefs on others. I also read where 80+ percent of RC’s use birth control or have a Vasectomy or their tubes tied. ---
**Author:** ![Kalimero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aca169/32.png) [@Kalimero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalimero)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/91 "2012-11-14T14:53:30Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I don’t.That is the thing though; offering birth control is net cost savings for insurance companies, that’s why they haven’t objected to picking up the tab. Fewer pregnancies is cheaper than providing monthly pills. If offering birth control ist net cost saving for the insurance companies, why make coverage mandatory? I - much like about 90% of the european electorate - wholeheartedly support the idea of UHC. I think the end of providing affordable health care for everyone justifies the means of slightly curtailing the freedom of choice of insurance companies and the healthy majority. That’s essentially where the “Rebublican point of view” and I are in disagreement. Having said that, I don’t understand why supporters of UHC insist on mandatory coverage of birth control. Oral contraceptives are a).. fairly cheap, so the overwhelming majority can buy it out of the pocket b).. used by a large majority of female insurents c).. are - in most case - not medically necessary The idea of insurance is distribution of risk. Insuring something with the attributes a) and b) seems like a waste of money (That’s the reason why in my opinion insurance policies with deductibles are a good idea) And without c), there are no ethical arguments (like providing insulin for a diabtec) either. So why bother? I don’t subscribe to the religious argument brought forward on this issue. But dropping mandatory coverage for birth control wouldn’t hurt the main objective of UHC. Let it go! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/92 "2012-11-14T15:05:30Z")
> [@Kalimero](#): > > If offering birth control ist net cost saving for the insurance companies, why make coverage mandatory? So that insurance companies can’t cave to the demands of mega-bigots like the Catholic church at the expense of employees. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/93 "2012-11-14T16:03:34Z")
> [@Kalimero](#): > > Oral contraceptives are > a).. fairly cheap, so the overwhelming majority can buy it out of the pocket Have you purchased oral contraceptives lately? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/94 "2012-11-14T16:10:48Z")
> [@Kalimero](#): > > If offering birth control ist net cost saving for the insurance companies, why make coverage mandatory? > I - much like about 90% of the european electorate - wholeheartedly support the idea of UHC. I think the end of providing affordable health care for everyone justifies the means of slightly curtailing the freedom of choice of insurance companies and the healthy majority. That’s essentially where the “Rebublican point of view” and I are in disagreement. > Having said that, I don’t understand why supporters of UHC insist on mandatory coverage of birth control. Oral contraceptives are > a).. fairly cheap, so the overwhelming majority can buy it out of the pocket > b).. used by a large majority of female insurents > **c).. are - in most case - not medically necessary** > The idea of insurance is distribution of risk. Insuring something with the attributes a) and b) seems like a waste of money (That’s the reason why in my opinion insurance policies with deductibles are a good idea) > And without c), there are no ethical arguments (like providing insulin for a diabtec) either. So why bother? > > I don’t subscribe to the religious argument brought forward on this issue. But dropping mandatory coverage for birth control wouldn’t hurt the main objective of UHC. Let it go! Using contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy is medically necessary. Planning and spacing pregnancies improve the health of women, their children and their families. Not to mention the social and economic factors. Women of childbearing age [spent 68% more in out-of-pocket health care costs than did men of the same age,](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/2/gr070206.pdf) and that reproductive health services accounted for a large portion of women’s health spending. Women’s health care is over politicized enough and should not be used as a political bargaining tool. Denying coverage for contraceptives that almost every female uses and can only access by entering the US health care system is a gender equity issue. Your argument might have more merit if (female) contraceptives were available over the counter like (male) condoms, but they are only available after seeing a healthcare provider who performs an exam and writes a prescription (or inserts an implant like an IUD, etc), accessed through health insurance. However, there is certainly a valid argument that many female contraceptives should be available over the counter. [In the battle over contraception, it’s time for the Roman Catholic Church to acknowledge the pill’s health benefits. The U.S. should even allow over-the-counter sales.](http://bixby.berkeley.edu/bixby-chair-dr-malcolm-potts-la-times-op-ed-a-contraception-game-changer/) ---
**Author:** ![Kalimero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aca169/32.png) [@Kalimero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalimero)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/95 "2012-11-14T21:35:54Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Have you purchased oral contraceptives lately? 😕 To be honest, I haven’t. I had an idea of the magnitude we are talking about. The exact numbers I had to look up. At an online pharmacy for my country, a 3 month package of Yasmin ist 48€ ([Cite, German](http://www.austriaapotheke.com/yasmin.html)). According to Planned Parenthood, [costs are between 15 and 50 Dollars per month in America](http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-pill-4228.htm). > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Using contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy is medically necessary. Planning and spacing pregnancies improve the health of women, their children and their families. Not to mention the social and economic factors. There are cheaper methods to prevent prengnancies. Condoms, sex education… And, like I said, even the pill is not THAT expensive. > [@](#): > > Women of childbearing age [spent 68% more in out-of-pocket health care costs than did men of the same age,](http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/07/2/gr070206.pdf) and that reproductive health services accounted for a large portion of women’s health spending. > > Women’s health care is over politicized enough and should not be used as a political bargaining tool. Denying coverage for contraceptives that almost every female uses and can only access by entering the US health care system is a gender equity issue. I don’t think it’s prudent to try to solve inequality issues via UHC policy, when you’ve got 52 million uninsured persons. And 15-50 Dollars per month is not very effective to “deny” the use of contraceptives. > [@](#): > > Your argument might have more merit if (female) contraceptives were available over the counter like (male) condoms, but they are only available after seeing a healthcare provider who performs an exam and writes a prescription (or inserts an implant like an IUD, etc), accessed through health insurance. > > However, there is certainly a valid argument that many female contraceptives should be available over the counter. > > [In the battle over contraception, it’s time for the Roman Catholic Church to acknowledge the pill’s health benefits. The U.S. should even allow over-the-counter sales.](http://bixby.berkeley.edu/bixby-chair-dr-malcolm-potts-la-times-op-ed-a-contraception-game-changer/) I agree. Preventive medical exams by a gynecologist once a year should be mandatorily covered regardless of contraceptive use, including consultation about birth control and a PAP-smear. OTC sale of oral contraceptives would be a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/96 "2012-11-14T23:38:05Z")
> [@Kalimero](#): > > There are cheaper methods to prevent prengnancies. Condoms, sex education… And, like I said, even the pill is not THAT expensive. Male condoms (which are most frequently sold OTC) are designed for male autonomy and depend more on male efficacy of use (though females should certainly insist their partner wear one). Barrier methods that are designed for female anatomy and depend more on female efficacy of use - like a diaphragm or cervical cap - are not available OTC in the US. Supposedly women must be “sized” for them by a healthcare provider and then get prescription. Funny, men don’t need to be "sized’ for condoms, eh? Wonder how the variation in cervix size compares to penis size, that justifies one gender needing to be sized by a healthcare provider and not the other? > [@Kalimero](#): > > I don’t think it’s prudent to try to solve inequality issues via UHC policy, when you’ve got 52 million uninsured persons. And 15-50 Dollars per month is not very effective to “deny” the use of contraceptives. Hmm, using health policy to address gender inequity in healthcare doesn’t seem prudent to you? Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that. Women experience unbelievable amounts of paternalism in their sexual health care. Yet, no one blinks an eye when Viagra, and Low-T drugs are covered by insurance without controversy. Ah yes, because impotency (now being peddled as erectile dysfunction) is now considered a worthy physiological ailment where as preventing unintended pregnancy is not. Cause yanno, Hugh Heffner getting it up at 90 years old is just how men are supposed to be, right? And Michelle Duggar is the model of women’s health. You obviously are quite ignorant on the costs of contraceptives. A woman’s childbearing years span ~30 years (15 average age of menarche to 45 average age of menopause). The average number of children a woman desires in the US is ~2 so that leaves ~20-25 years of pregnancy avoidance. You do the math. I’m sure generic diabetes drugs and statins only cost a couple dollars a month, yet no one is suggesting that we exclude these treatments from insurance coverage? Why do women get thrown under the bus? ---
**Author:** ![EverwonderWhy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee59a6/32.png) [@EverwonderWhy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EverwonderWhy)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2012, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/97 "2012-11-14T23:51:12Z")
Also, how does sex education prevent unintended pregnancies without including contraceptives? Abstinence? The pullout method? The rhythm method? Prayer? The only OTC method is (male) condoms. Which is BS and not at all equitable. ---
**Author:** ![Kalimero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aca169/32.png) [@Kalimero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalimero)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/98 "2012-11-15T14:47:46Z")
> [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Male condoms (which are most frequently sold OTC) are designed for male autonomy and depend more on male efficacy of use (though females should certainly insist their partner wear one). Barrier methods that are designed for female anatomy and depend more on female efficacy of use - like a diaphragm or cervical cap - are not available OTC in the US. Supposedly women must be “sized” for them by a healthcare provider and then get prescription. Funny, men don’t need to be "sized’ for condoms, eh? Wonder how the variation in cervix size compares to penis size, that justifies one gender needing to be sized by a healthcare provider and not the other? Of course I was talking about male condoms. > [@](#): > > Hmm, using health policy to address gender inequity in healthcare doesn’t seem prudent to you? Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that. Yes, we have to disagree on that. > [@](#): > > Women experience unbelievable amounts of paternalism in their sexual health care. Yet, no one blinks an eye when Viagra, and Low-T drugs are covered by insurance without controversy. Ah yes, because impotency (now being peddled as erectile dysfunction) is now considered a worthy physiological ailment where as preventing unintended pregnancy is not. Cause yanno, Hugh Heffner getting it up at 90 years old is just how men are supposed to be, right? And Michelle Duggar is the model of women’s health. I don’t think Viagra has to be covered necessarily. Still, impotence _prevents_ you from having sex. Not using oral contraceptives does not. And paternalism towards women doesn’t disappear just because they get their contraceptives for free. > [@](#): > > You obviously are quite ignorant on the costs of contraceptives. A woman’s childbearing years span ~30 years (15 average age of menarche to 45 average age of menopause). The average number of children a woman desires in the US is ~2 so that leaves ~20-25 years of pregnancy avoidance. You do the math. I’ aware of that. But for the question wheter it’s affordable, lifetime cost is not a useful parameter. It’s 15 to 50 Dollars per month in your country. Over here, it’s about 20 Euros per month. > [@](#): > > I’m sure generic diabetes drugs and statins only cost a couple dollars a month, yet no one is suggesting that we exclude these treatments from insurance coverage? Why do women get thrown under the bus? Like I said, I do support deductibles. > [@EverwonderWhy](#): > > Also, how does sex education prevent unintended pregnancies without including contraceptives? > > Abstinence? The pullout method? The rhythm method? Prayer? The only OTC method is (male) condoms. Which is BS and not at all equitable. Teaching abstinence in sex education is like promoting taking the bus in a save driving course. The pullout method is bullshit. Prayer? Come on! How about: Awareness that both sexes are responsible for contraception. Proper use of condoms. Proper use and caveats of oral contraceptives. Do you suggest sex ed. is useless in preventing unwanted pregnancies? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/99 "2012-11-15T14:55:57Z")
You suggested education as an _alternative_. ---
**Author:** ![Kalimero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/aca169/32.png) [@Kalimero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalimero)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2012, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878/100 "2012-11-15T16:18:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You suggested education as an _alternative_. :smack:Rereading my statement, I agree it was poorly phrased. My english is a bit rusty. What I meant: Sex education is an effective public tool to reduce unwanted pregnancies in society. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-admin-violating-1st-amendment/640878.md?page=6)