# So why Birth Control Especially? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 7, 2012, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012 "2012-03-07T04:32:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/21 "2012-03-07T16:32:17Z")
> [@OldnCrinkly](#): > > So, I may be misunderstanding here, but I’ll try and see if I have this straight. Employers will be required to provide medical insurance coverage to employees. This coverage must include birth control. > > Some groups, notably Catholics, have a moral objection to birth control. They can not accept this new requirement that has been placed on employers, which they are in many instances. > > Well, here’s what, federal taxes already pay for birth control (medicaid, grants to health clinics, etc.). How is it less offensive to provide payment for taxes, some portion of which goes to birth control, that to comply with a law that says you must provide payment for insurance, some portion of which goes to birth control? > > In fact, I would think there are a number of expenditures in the federal budget that may be offensive to people on moral or religious grounds. Even if the organization did not pay any portion of federal taxes (I believe they do match some portion, but I could be thinking of state only) they are still forwarding the money and are therefore complicit in the funding of the offense. > > So why take the stand on birth control? Everyone has to pick their battles, why pick this? Why not nuclear weapons or whatever? For the same reason they impeached Bill Clinton for a blow job. They thought they were on the verge of a sea cahnge only to find that they might be looking at a atershed moment going the other way. That and they got nothin else. ---
**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, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/22 "2012-03-07T16:38:41Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > It’s not only BC that’s covered 100% with no copay, depending on your insurance plan. > > I get 1 free mammogram each year, 100% covered, no copay. > I also get 2 free teeth cleanings each year, plus one set of dental x-rays, 100% covered, no copay. > I could probably come up with a few more, but I don’t feel like digging through my insurance policy to find other examples. This thread is not a discussion of anyone’s response to your insurance plan; it’s a discussion of the response to President Obama’s rule requiring all employers\* to purchase insurance that covers all types of birth control without any copay. I don’t know the details but while Obamacare requires all insurance plans to cover some things, it certainly does not require them to cover a great many others, certainly not without a copay. **jtgain** has given the example of chemotherapy. The obvious question is, why do certain persons find it absolutely necessary to demand that birth control be covered with no copay, while simultaneously being indifferent to the question of whether life-saving medications are covered with no copay? \*Except, as we’ve seen, it’s actually some employers and not others. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/23 "2012-03-07T16:53:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Some employers will be required to do that and others will not. For example, employers with fewer than fifty employees are not required to provide their employees with insurance that covers birth control. Oddly enough, those folks who are howling in outrage about how the Catholic Church is supposedly trying deny its employees their “right” to birth control are _not_ howling in outrage about how companies with fewer than fifty employees are doing the same thing. I don’t like to call people disingenuous, but your “oddly enough” gives me pause. Are you really unable to think of a principled distinction a person might make between these two groups? ---
**Author:** ![OldnCrinkly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@OldnCrinkly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldnCrinkly)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/24 "2012-03-07T17:54:08Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Perhaps you see no difference, but to me the difference is very clear. If I am required by law to give some of my money to X, that’s different from me paying taxes to the government, which then spends money on X. In the later case, the government is making the decision and taking the responsibility for the giving of money to X. In the former case, the government is making the decision but trying to force me to take responsibility for it. I do not see the difference. The business does not cut a check for each bc prescription, the insurance company does. Wouldn’t the responsibility be on the insurance company? I appreciate the theory of all life being sacred. I can understand why a particular citizen may not want their own money spent on something they truly object to on a moral basis. But once it is not in your hand, it is not yours to decide how it is spent, how would you be personally responsible? How about if someone says they don’t want to pay for any drugs manufactured by any company that also manufactures bc? But my question still is why bc? If the objection in not based on the sanctity of life, how is it a religious objection? And if that is the objection, how is bc the worst example of disregard for human life? There are horrible things going on all over the world everyday. To me this is like getting robbed and being madder about the thief taking your wallet than taking the stuff in in and shooting you. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/25 "2012-03-07T18:10:52Z")
> [@OldnCrinkly](#): > > Some groups, notably Catholics, have a moral objection to birth control. They can not accept this new requirement that has been placed on employers, which they are in many instances. > > Well, here’s what, federal taxes already pay for birth control (medicaid, grants to health clinics, etc.). How is it less offensive to provide payment for taxes, some portion of which goes to birth control, that to comply with a law that says you must provide payment for insurance, some portion of which goes to birth control? Don’t give them any ideas. Next thing you know people will object to paying taxes on religious grounds and _you don’t hate God do you?!_ > [@](#): > > In fact, I would think there are a number of expenditures in the federal budget that may be offensive to people on moral or religious grounds. This is true. But the distinction that seems important is whether anyone _cannot practice their religion_. I’ve yet to see evidence that anyone is actually compelled to use birth control. The whole thing is a red herring. > [@](#): > > So why take the stand on birth control? Everyone has to pick their battles, why pick this? Why not nuclear weapons or whatever? I’m sure if Jesus had nukes he would not let Satan get them. He’d leave every option on the table. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/26 "2012-03-07T19:14:03Z")
The difference is so obvious that I really wonder about the people who claim they don’t understand. Tax money pays for many things, birth control is a very small part of the budget, less than .1% of the total. Plus anyone person or institution who withheld tax money would not make one bit of diffence in the amount budgeted or spent on birth control. On the other hand forcing someone to pay for birth control means 100% of the money gets spent on birth control. Several members of Westboro Baptist work for the State of Kansas. This means every taxpayer in Kansas pays for them to do their publicity tours of funerals. If Kansas passed a law that people had to give them money directly, no one could possibly object since there is no difference in be required to buy something and having the government buy something. Some welfare recipients use the money to buy crack, therefore no one could have any objection to a law that requires them to buy crack for poor people. The military provides chaples and chaplains to its members, therefore no one could possibly object to a law that requires all citizens to buy bibles. ---
**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, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/27 "2012-03-07T19:14:21Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This thread is not a discussion of anyone’s response to your insurance plan; it’s a discussion of the response to President Obama’s rule requiring all employers\* to purchase insurance that covers all types of birth control without any copay. I don’t know the details but while Obamacare requires all insurance plans to cover some things, it certainly does not require them to cover a great many others, certainly not without a copay. **jtgain** has given the example of chemotherapy. The obvious question is, why do certain persons find it absolutely necessary to demand that birth control be covered with no copay, while simultaneously being indifferent to the question of whether life-saving medications are covered with no copay? > \*Except, as we’ve seen, it’s actually some employers and not others. My post _was_ relevant. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that no two insurance plans are the same. What is 100% covered under this plan is only 80% covered under that plan. Another thing I’m not sure you understand: The employer determines the formulary. The formulary is a list of meds and procedures that the company is willing to pay the premiums for. Any employer can exclude this or that, and many do, and it’s very inconsistent. This applies to several different plans offered by the same employer, or when employers change carriers. You never know from one plan year to the next what will be covered. Most employers consider their share of the premiums paid to be part of your compensation package. Most employers do not cover insurance premiums 100%; both the employer and the employee kick in some cash. Yet, it’s up to the employer to determine what will and won’t be covered. Employers are already directing how some of our compensation will be spent with zero input from employees. I don’t see what the big deal is. What’s your problem with requiring employers to include BC in their formulary? What’s the cite that the Obama legislation requires that BC is included in the formulary and MUST be covered 100%, no co-pay? I suspect the real fact is that the act simply legislates that BC must be included in the formulary. I bet there is nothing in it that states it _has_ to be covered 100% or without \*any \*copay. Even if it is, I still don’t understand why that’s some kind of huge problem. Within our insurance premiums, all sorts of things are paid for that are the result in behavior on the part of my coworkers that I don’t approve of. A great example would be weight-loss surgery. My premiums are what they are because weight-loss surgery is covered and we can debate about whether that’s medically necessary all day. Viagra is often covered, but BC isn’t. I’ve been paying for men’s boner pills for years, and STILL had to pay for my own BC. Why do you resent BC so much? ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/28 "2012-03-07T19:39:15Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > What’s the cite that the Obama legislation requires that BC is included in the formulary and MUST be covered 100%, no co-pay? I suspect the real fact is that the act simply legislates that BC must be included in the formulary. I bet there is nothing in it that states it _has_ to be covered 100% or without \*any \*copay. Even if it is, I still don’t understand why that’s some kind of huge problem. Within our insurance premiums, all sorts of things are paid for that are the result in behavior on the part of my coworkers that I don’t approve of. A great example would be weight-loss surgery. My premiums are what they are because weight-loss surgery is covered and we can debate about whether that’s medically necessary all day. Viagra is often covered, but BC isn’t. I’ve been paying for men’s boner pills for years, and STILL had to pay for my own BC. You would lose that bet [HHS OKs birth control with no co-pay](http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/01/free.birth.control/index.html) If you don’t want to pay for viagra, you are free to start a business and buy a plan that does not cover them. The catholic church started hospitals and has religous objections to buying birth control. The point of debate is whether the government should be able to force a religion to buy something it thinks is immoral to buy. If the government tried to force Jewish organizations to buy its employees bacon, the issue would be the same, religious freedom. ---
**Author:** ![OldnCrinkly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8e7dd6/32.png) [@OldnCrinkly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldnCrinkly)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/29 "2012-03-07T19:42:27Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The difference is so obvious that I really wonder about the people who claim they don’t understand. Tax money pays for many things, birth control is a very small part of the budget, less than .1% of the total. Plus anyone person or institution who withheld tax money would not make one bit of diffence in the amount budgeted or spent on birth control. On the other hand forcing someone to pay for birth control means 100% of the money gets spent on birth control. > Several members of Westboro Baptist work for the State of Kansas. This means every taxpayer in Kansas pays for them to do their publicity tours of funerals. If Kansas passed a law that people had to give them money directly, no one could possibly object since there is no difference in be required to buy something and having the government buy something. > Some welfare recipients use the money to buy crack, therefore no one could have any objection to a law that requires them to buy crack for poor people. > The military provides chaples and chaplains to its members, therefore no one could possibly object to a law that requires all citizens to buy bibles. You really wonder huh? Well, again, employers are NOT writing checks to cover bc, the write checks to cover health insurance. Insurance pays for many things, some small part of which would be birth control. If you have a religious objection to that, why not object to diabetes, heart disease, gastric bypass type medicines? If birth control subsidizes what you consider immoral sexual activity, do they not subsidize gluttonous behavior? What about treatment for STD’s? It is quite unlikely for two virgins to get married, never commit adultery and still contract an STD. Is that not sinful? I don’t want to pay for it is absolutely not a valid objection here. If you have a religious objection, that may be valid, but if so why only birth control? That’s what is being claimed here, it is absolutely not compatible with people’s sincerely held RELIGIOUS beliefs. I don’t want to contribute because I don’t like it is not a valid objection. Everyone holds up the Catholics here because their objection to bc is long standing and well known. I think they are being used by people who have no religious objection whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![joew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/34f0e0/32.png) [@joew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/joew)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/30 "2012-03-07T19:57:23Z")
I thought that birth control was included as a mandatory part of the plan due to it recently being classified as preventative care by the Institute of Medicine. I think it is, but can see how there would be debate. Chemotherapy is not however, preventative. And in this case, I would think that preventative = maintenance care, but whatever. And while a baby is not a disease to prevent - it is a condition, and for many an unwanted condition. ---
**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, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/31 "2012-03-07T20:05:06Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > You would lose that bet [HHS OKs birth control with no co-pay](http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/01/free.birth.control/index.html) > If you don’t want to pay for viagra, you are free to start a business and buy a plan that does not cover them. The catholic church started hospitals and has religous objections to buying birth control. The point of debate is whether the government should be able to force a religion to buy something it thinks is immoral to buy. If the government tried to force Jewish organizations to buy its employees bacon, the issue would be the same, religious freedom. That was just an article. Where’s the HHS language that specifies no copay? If you don’t want to pay for my BC, you are free to start a business and buy a plan that does not cover it. Just keep it under 50 employees and you’re golden. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/32 "2012-03-07T20:15:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > Several members of Westboro Baptist work for the State of Kansas. This means every taxpayer in Kansas pays for them to do their publicity tours of funerals. If Kansas passed a law that people had to give them money directly, no one could possibly object since there is no difference in be required to buy something and having the government buy something. Find me a person who has been compelled to buy and/or use birth control. You cannot. What we’re discussing are organizations being compelled to behave in a certain way in their capacity as organizations. Framing it as “people supporting birth control” is just spin. No individual acting as an individual is being forced to do anything. ---
**Author:** ![twhitt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/87869e/32.png) [@twhitt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/twhitt)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/33 "2012-03-07T20:20:13Z")
> [@OldnCrinkly](#): > > Well, here’s what, federal taxes already pay for birth control (medicaid, grants to health clinics, etc.). How is it less offensive to provide payment for taxes, some portion of which goes to birth control, that to comply with a law that says you must provide payment for insurance, some portion of which goes to birth control? > > In fact, I would think there are a number of expenditures in the federal budget that may be offensive to people on moral or religious grounds. Even if the organization did not pay any portion of federal taxes (I believe they do match some portion, but I could be thinking of state only) they are still forwarding the money and are therefore complicit in the funding of the offense. > > So why take the stand on birth control? Everyone has to pick their battles, why pick this? Why not nuclear weapons or whatever? In [this article, by Sherif Girgis and Robert P. George](http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/02/4736), they discuss at length the difference between formal cooperation with wrongdoing, and material cooperation. The difference between formal and material cooperation is in the intention of the actor. Material cooperation is when you do not intend for wrongdoing to occur, but when you are either compelled to allow it or unable to prevent it. It’s not a terribly long article, and worth a read. Their punchline is this: > [@](#): > > To begin with, neither before nor after the February 10th “compromise” would the mandate require religious objectors to cooperate formally in what they considered wrongdoing—i.e., to intend that their employees make use of contraceptives, sterilization, or abortion-drugs. Both would, however, require material cooperation. > > And that material cooperation would have substantially similar bad effects. After all, before and after the change, employees would have coverage for contraceptives and abortion drugs by virtue of their religiously affiliated (or religiously observant, or morally conscientious) employers’ insurance contracts. Before and after, employers who oppose these drugs would nevertheless be required to select, contract, and—let’s drop the charade—pay for plans by which their employees obtained coverage for them. > > Either way, then, the mandate would violate religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Secondly, it’s possible that those most upset about this issue are in a small minority, defensive, and prone to making statements which sound terrible to nearly any attentive woman. As a matter of politics, it’s not difficult to understand that the White House might choose to bait religious leaders with an issue that would drive a wedge between them and the vast moderate middle who do not consider access to contraception to be a moral issue (as a different matter from abortion). Similarly, most women who use or have used birth control are unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that it’s immoral, so the risks or potential downsides to the administration by raising the issue are few. Either no one notices and no one cares, or the religious right notices, bristles at the affront, and makes ridiculous statements that alienate themselves from moderates. The debate is on terms that were dictated by the administration, and selected on the basis of the preposterous way that the religious right was likely to make their case. ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/34 "2012-03-07T20:49:36Z")
> [@Dogzilla](#): > > That was just an article. Where’s the HHS language that specifies no copay? > > If you don’t want to pay for my BC, you are free to start a business and buy a plan that does not cover it. Just keep it under 50 employees and you’re golden. [HHS guidelines](http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/) Did you think CNN was just making stuff up? I guess I missed the part of the constitution where once you have over 50 employees you lose your religous freedom. Would you kindly provide a link to that? > [@](#): > > No individual acting as an individual is being forced to do anything. So your position is that freedom of religion does not apply to churches because they are not individuals? That is certainly novel. Trying to frame the issue as being pro- or anti- birth control is disengenous. I think birth control is great, but I don’t want to force Catholics to pay for it. I think meat is great but I don’t want to force Hindus to pay for it. I think bacon is great but I don’t want to force Jews to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2012, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/35 "2012-03-07T20:55:51Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > So your position is that freedom of religion does not apply to churches because they are not individuals? That is certainly novel. Freedom of religion has limits. Churches are exempt from taxation, but their employees are not, even if the employees in question are priests. In their capacity as an employer, they should be bound by the rules for employers. If the government disagrees with me with regard to churches in particular, I’m going to consider it bullshit but I’m not going to start a blog or anything. But it is bullshit. > [@](#): > > Trying to frame the issue as being pro- or anti- birth control is disengenous. I think birth control is great, but I don’t want to force Catholics to pay for it. If everyone in the country were an obedient Catholic, no one would be paying for it. No individual is being compelled to consume or use birth control. No individual is prohibited from practicing their religion. The only reason this is an issue is because people want to use birth control, being prescription-based they want it to be under the blanket of health insurance, and this is just life as an employer… you have to do things you wouldn’t otherwise as an individual. I feel sorry for absolutely no one but women who would be denied their coverage because someone else doesn’t want them to use birth control. ---
**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, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/36 "2012-03-07T20:57:02Z")
Given that the law allows the Church the option of simply not offering their employees insurance, it’s a little disingenuous to pretend that this is about forcing the church to pay for birth control. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/37 "2012-03-07T21:00:18Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > [HHS guidelines](http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/) Did you think CNN was just making stuff up? > I guess I missed the part of the constitution where once you have over 50 employees you lose your religous freedom. Would you kindly provide a link to that? > > \ The fact I was stating is this: if you are an employer who has fewer than 50 employees, you are not required to provide health insurance at all. The Affordable Care Act, however, does offer small business a tax credit and a place at the Exchange table, in the event that small businesses wish to provide insurance anyway, despite not being required. [Cite.](http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insurance/employers/small-business/index.html#provide) And no, I didn’t think CNN was making shit up; I just couldn’t find the link to the actual legislation language. Thank you. Last time I checked, you are not losing your religious freedom. So far, the First Amendment still says that Congress shall not establish a state religion. ---
**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, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/38 "2012-03-07T21:06:41Z")
> [@DianaG](#): > > Given that the law allows the Church the option of simply not offering their employees insurance, it’s a little disingenuous to pretend that this is about forcing the church to pay for birth control. Uh, Obamacare specifically denies the Church that freedom. All employers (employing fifty or more) must provide health insurance or pay a stiff fine. ---
**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, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/39 "2012-03-07T21:11:31Z")
I understand that. They’re free to not offer insurance, and to pay the fine. That’s plenty of freedom, no one ever promised them that they could do whatever they want whenever they want because they want. ---
**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, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012/40 "2012-03-07T21:13:42Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Uh, Obamacare specifically denies the Church that freedom. All employers (employing fifty or more) must provide health insurance or pay a stiff fine. They don’t have to provide insurance. It is their choice to pay the tax if they want. They also don’t have to provide birth control. You are repeating misinformation. What you are asserting is simply not true. A church-owned business need not provide birth control. It is provided at no cost by the insurance company. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-birth-control-especially/615012.md?page=3)