OH HELL NO

[moonwise]

Arizona wades into contraception controversy

The Arizona Senate is considering a bill that would give all businesses the option to exclude contraceptives from health insurance coverage. The only exception is if a woman can prove she is taking the contraceptives for other medical reasons.

Supporters say such a law would protect the religious beliefs of employers, while critics assert the tradeoff would be an affront to the liberties of employees.

Comments

[arafel.livejournal.com]

For example, I would not support a law saying that every homeowner was required to purchase a security system with private monitoring because this would reduce crime and save money for the police department.

I'm glad that the government doesn't require security systems, because they are a colossal waste of money for all the false alarms they generate. But, the law does mandate that you purchase car insurance if you own a car, and homeowner's insurance if you own a house. Every citizen has to pay into Social Security and Medicare, even though you and I have a snowball's chance in hell of ever receiving either program ourselves.

Again, running in circles. Me, I think that the kerfuffle over BC has its roots in what people claim should be happening vs. what they actually do. Admitting the truth means going against "principles," which then leads to a whole bunch of questions that are very uncomfortable to answer. Better just to hold the party line.

[skurtchasor.livejournal.com]

As much as I hate to agree with the republicans on this one, nobody is forced to drive a car or own a house, and I have several friends who get along quite well without one or the other. The individual mandate requires you to buy something simply because you exist.

But I think you're dead on regarding BC.