[baxter999]

This article contains so many things that are wrong about America. And although it should be repugnant to force an insurer like the Catholic church to cover a practice that it considers immoral, the main issue here is increasing government control.

Birth control is a minor issue. Pills are cheap and there are tons of ways to get them free or deeply discounted already. (Planned Parenthood and other abortionists being easily found almost anywhere)

The point of this movement is to get government involved in saying what is and isn't covered in "private" insurances. Once this is done all kinds of bad things ensue.

First, costs go up leading to higher health spending. This higher health spending is then used by liberals to justify even more government intervention in a system that is already socialized (even though the liberals caused the increase).

Second, higher costs mean that more employers will drop insurance, leading to more uninsured. This, too, will be used to justify further government intervention.

Third, insurers that won't comply, like a religion that opposes contraception, will be forced out of business, decreasing competition and increasings costs, which will be used to justify more government.

Once government can do this, why not require coverage of that neutraceutical product whose company gave so much money to Congressman X's campaign? And why not force coverage of abortion, cloning, month long vacations for queers with AIDS, etc. ?

Obviously there is no end in sight once the precedent is established. Note that this precedent is established in many states and will probably soon be nationally established.

Although we are probably fighting a losing battle with the current RINO in chief and liberal control of Congress and the judiciary, it's still a battle worth waging if for no other reason than delaying the deluge of socialism a few more days.

Here in Utah I contact all the representatives every year and get this perennial bill voted down. But with even the local AMA affiliate, the Utah Medical Association, fighting for its passage, it is just a matter of time. Apres mois, le deluge? Perhaps it is time to take a book from the old Romans who, seeing their Republic in ruins, retired to their villas in the country and awaited the onslaught of the barbarians?

[Dad was my hero]

It is a rediculous concept to equate birth control pills with viagara. This has been an ongoing cry from liberals and women for some time. The two do not handle similar functions.

From the insurer's standpoint, I hate to see it happen because it is going to be one more nail in the coffin of private insurance. Anyone who advocates covering birth control pills because viagara is covered doesn't know basic anatomy.

[TX Bluebonnet]

In Kentucky, hard-line abortion foes are lobbying a public health board to turn down federal family planning money used to dispense birth control pills to women, saying the contraceptives are the equivalent of an abortion.

Oh Brother!

If Catholics don't belive in birth control, then their policyholders shouldn't be turning in any claims for birth control pills.

BTW, I kind of agree with the Viagra argument myself.

[Lorianne]

In terms of economics, not covering contraceptives would raise insurance costs because of:

___Pregnancy and childbirth costs (which include very high E&O insurance costs to doctors) The "sue" rate for pregnancy and birth related mishaps is very high compared to other health care services.

___Coverage of child health care (including the astronomically high health care cost of preemies and children with various birth defects).

From a cost standpoint, it would seem to me cheaper for everyone if contraceptives were covered.

In addition many health care plans cover fertility treatments and IVF, very high ticket items also with a high "sue" rate.