Quote Originally Posted by Stealth694 View Post
Thorne, I think the Abstinance idea (stupid) is more against being pro-active,,, birth control vs abortion or delivery.
Insurance companies are not really proactive as reactive. They are afraid if they support birth control they will have to deal with the fall out.
There's more to it than that. Just as there are sound medical reasons for abortions (fetus badly deformed, or deceased, or for the health of the mother, or for rape) there are sound medical reasons for women to use birth control pills (endometriosis, excessive cramping, etc.) The "fall out" comes from religious nuts who want to control women's reproductive rights, who want to prevent any kind of premarital sex, who want to move everyone in the country back to the 1st century when you could be stoned for adultery.

I would have no problems with the government, state or federal, paying for birth control pills or abortions for such medical reasons. I can see no valid reason for insurance companies NOT to include birth control pills in their medical coverage. Should self-insured religious groups be forced to provide such insurance? I see no valid, medical reason why they should not. If their employees are members of that church, then they won't make use of them anyway, right? And if they are not, the church has no right to impose its beliefs upon non-members.