It may work on the very very few who do think anyone should use contraception, but it won't work on the majority who simply don't want to pay for everyone else's contraception.

Providing for the military is in the Constitution, providing contraception is not.

And so ... I am morally opposed to the US using the military outside of the CONSTITUTIONAL definition of war.

Can I get a refund of my tax dollars for the Iraq "war"???

On edit ... I'll add, I do not want my tax dollars going for the Death penalty. That is not in the Constitution, and I am morally opposed to it.

And ... I'm also a Luddite ... I am morally opposed to having my tax dollars go to any technology advances.

and I wouldn't mind seeing the court's decision on that. Doesn't negate the fact that being provided contraception isn't anywhere in the Constitution though.

And the argument against taxes paying for the death penalty and technology does nothing but encourage the belief that the federal government should not be involved in those things in the first place.

I would consider free access to birth control necessary for the general welfare!

In fact, they would probably just respond that they would consider freedom of choice is even more necessary.

I don't have Parkinson's Disease so I don't want to pay for drugs for that. I also am not an alcoholic so I shouldn't have to contribute to payment of treatment or drugs for that. The whole thing that makes insurance or other health plans work is that everyone pays some and those who need are able to use it. It's not a vote on which condition or disease you want to support. If a person needs or wants birth control, why shouldn't their insurance pay for it just like drugs for any other condition. They pay for drugs for men's limp dicks, don't they?

I don't have kids, why should I contribute to the public schools? I have a car. Why should I subsidize public transit? I hate reading. Why should I help pay for libraries?

Sometimes, the rightwingers are just ridiculous.

I guess limp dicks are actually a form of birth control.

is about having a vote on which plan, if one at all, that a person freely participates in.
They are NOT trying to force insurance company's to NOT offer birth control to anybody at all, they are saying they want to pick the plan of their choosing, which would be one that does not offer birth control.

It doesn't matter if they now pay for limp dicks or not, their argument is that they want you to have the choice to pay for limp dicks or not. If there is a market for not paying for them, a plan will be created to take advantage of it.

I would think that most of the time a guy gets to the point where
he can't get it up he's really past the point of wanting to father children anyway.

After 40, why isn't it just considered cosmetic.

(sorry, I don't have one of those sarchasm blinkies!)

What's so special about contraception as opposed to, say, heart check-ups?

and another day, another Republican post by you.

Support of contraception in health plans is not the issue, mandating contraception in ALL health plans is.
Mandates take away freedom of choice and there is a huge difference between an established government mandate and a mandate that is not established or clear. That is why the OP's response is so easy to counter.

Thanks for clearing that up.

And guess what?

People, if they so choose, can still find policies that do cover cancer.

are they available in every state and to people with preexisting conditions? are they more expensive than group coverage offered through employers?

i actually think you don't know anything about the health care issue, you're just making stuff up.

people who make everything sound easy don't know what they're talking about.

Are there policies available that do not cover cancer? Um, yep.
Can people choose to participate in a plan that covers cancer or one that does not? Um, yep.

While making a choice is usually not easy, insuring everybody has the freedom of choice is easy.

The problem isn't that I don't know what I'm talking about, it's that I don't blindly agree with you and do not cheerlead your opinion. And, unfortunately for your opinion, the health care issue cannot be discussed without individual rights being included in the discussion. Well, at least in this country.

you won't.

you haven't researched.

you don't actually care whether other people have coverage either.

you've stated you're a libertarian. that's a big word that replaces two smaller ones: don't care.

The very same argument can be made for a moral objection to war.

or people would be taking on that battle and winning.

Despite "moral objections" to war, tax money is still used for war. Why? Because defense was clearly established in the Constitution from the very beginning. There was not, and is not, a clause clearly establishing that it is governments duty to use tax money in order to provide anything for personal lives.

We are not going to win the debate if we keep using weak apples to oranges comparisons.

Kept saying they didn't want to pay for contraception, I thought if we get to pick and choose what our taxes pay for, I definetly would not pay for war...

to any extremist who wants to tell us what we can or should do with our bodies is...

"It's none of your fucking business. Period."

That's about the only thing they can't find a counter argument for.

"Go fuck yourself."

I would tell any man that spouts that garbage:

"Well, you need have no fear that I would ever have that issue with the likes of you, as sex
with someone like you is less likely to happen than the sun rising in the west tomorrow."

To counter the problem, do not simply deal with the superficial impacts the problem has, but attack the cause, the delusional belief systems.

Something needs to be done about the problem of belief systems that are contrary to reality.
People need to attack the idea that religious leaders are the supreme authority of actuality.

If they want to stay out of the public domain, and not impose their beliefs on others, fine.
But cross the line and demand that any individual religious belief supersedes reality and it is time to counter-attack the source of the problem, human delusions.

What we need today is a public discussion of the merits of consensual reality and the ridiculousness of metaphysical beliefs being legally superimposed on the larger world view.
This is a very important debate that must take place to avoid the descent anew into theocracies that burn people at the stake for not adhering to a particular delusion.

STOP RELIGION before they kill you.