“Reproductive justice requires that men who will never personally require maternity care or other gynecological services must still fund them through their insurance plans because (and it is stated as such), ‘he’ MAY get someone pregnant someday.”
In all fairness he may have a wife/girlfriend who might get pregnant.
If one watches the Maury Show then you know he may have a wife and several girls friends at any given time that may be her baby’s daddy.
One dude in Tennessee has fathered 27? babies by 14 women. So yea I see why they want men to pay for this.
Is there anything they don't want men to pay for?
But those 14 women already pay for (and use) female care and the baby daddy is on the hook for 18 years of child support.
Subdivided 27 ways doesn’t go far but we don’t have debtors’ prisons anymore.
The only other case that is remotely similar (in a weird way) is funding of schools through property taxes. Here, while many property owners do no have children, they are required to pay because of the public benefit of having educated children citizens. Even smoking (or the dangers of) is punished by extremely high taxes - on those that smoke.
In the case of abortion and the potential for a man to father children willy nilly, there are other avenues of redress and compensation. That’s what paternity tests, court support orders and the like are for. In this case, a typical male (all males, in fact) is considered ‘guilty’ before a baby is even allowed to make it into this world or before they even begin to think about fathering one. In this case, it is a crime even before it is committed.
If we humans want to boil it down to pure cost and potential costs, then there are a lot more eggs in that basket that liberals will eventually get around to if they are allowed to consolidate their power to its ultimate state.