The problem there is that this is a case where 'choice' can manifestly impact other peoples rights and their incomes. Aside from the issue of herd immunity, there's the simple fact that paying $25 bucks a month more onto the top of the pile now can save the system from having to pay much more down the line for even a relatively uneventful, if unwanted, birth. I can concede that some choice can be allowed without breaking a medical system (witness France), but at the same time it benefits society to provide a standard minimum of care so as to lessen the burden on the system of those that legitimately can't afford to pay for choice.

That's a slippery slope argument.

I do see where you're coming from, but I think it is within the rights of a government to determine that women's reproductive health needs to be protected on a federal level. What is being mandated is that everyone have equal access to it. Individuals retain the right to take the actual contraceptives or services or not, but insurance companies and employers no longer have the right to deny those services.

In my opinion, that is exactly the right and purpose of government. We can agree to disagree on this issue, and if this is a central tenet of the conservative party then they can work to repeal it. That work, IMO, shouldn't be accomplished through political grandstanding and theater.

This isn't a religious issue. It's a women's health issue, and people of religion can choose to not participate if they so choose, but women who happen to work for employers of religion who do wish to participate may now do so. That's freedom of choice, and that freedom of choice should be protected on a federal level along with other minority protections.

Not really. I'm just pointing out it's not likely to be the last time the government uses it's mandate powers. Not linking some big chain of events together. OT

And I think they should have the right to choose how the compensate their employees. Customizing a healthcare plan included.

On that we can agree. I see it as far more of a limited government issue.

Fixed. This standard of health care has been around for at least 2-3 decades, and was first introduced over 40 years ago. That's not "new," and while the extreme religious right has only recently gotten involved (in a major way), conservatives have been protesting it for years, despite the drop in associated health costs and improvement in women's health (evidenced by 98% of women using birth control at some point in their lives).

and he wonders where I got the impression of "liberal scum" in his posts...

Whatever your opinion of AlterNet, this article raises a very important point that sheds some additional light on the subject of women's sexual freedom. The main point of the article is that effective contraception has destroyed the social contract that existed between men and women for the past all-of-history-before-it. It's a fundamental change for humanity, and we really shouldn't be all that surprised that people rail against it and will likely continue to for some time.

As a side note, if you think no one is railing against contraception and it's just liberals and feminazis getting in a twist about nothing, Personhood USA is doing a bangup job of getting personhood bills into Republican controlled state legislatures all over the place right now. These laws do not exempt hormonal contraception, or even IVF or other fertility treatments. They do require a 12 year old girl raped by her father to carry the child to term, though, and also will get women killed as life saving abortions won't be allowed, either. Virginia is about to put one into law, in addition to their mandatory object rape before abortion law (I guess they decided to do both 'just in case'), as is Oklahoma.

Although it's not about contraception, if you're interested, Texas already has the mandatory object rape before abortion law, and it has been challenged in court, but the challenge has so far failed and may be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

More Republican spontaneous righteous anger (and ignorance): http://bostonherald.com/news/columni...rum_laid_bayer

Nice to see the hue and cry has finally got up! I mean, it only took a black man facing re-election to bring it out...

I'd be really curious to see the author's source for the Santorum quote. That sounds like something out of The Onion, and would be too good to be true, if true.

This is my favorite part:

Google suggests this interview, but I have to admit I'm not eager to watch a 45-minute interview with Rick Santorum.

More uninformed statements from candidate Santorum: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ZeNR_blog.html