"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/2/2014 10:28 AM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Steve Freides" > wrote:
>>
>>> ImStillMags wrote:
>>>
>>>> Legally the decision is a dangerous precedent and severe misreading
>>>> of the constitution. Medically it entirely misses the fact that
>>>> contraceptives serve many more medical purposes than just preventing
>>>> pregnancy. But theologically it is an even graver misstep. It allows
>>>> no room for grace, it is coercive (the opposite of the example of
>>>> Christ), and it is restrictive. None of those things reflect the vow
>>>> I took on at baptism to "respect the dignity of every human being."
>>>> Today's ruling disregards the dignity of the individual to chose
>>>> their own path in favor of the wealthy and secure, that is a loss for
>>>> us all.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.barefoottheology.com/2014...good-theology/
>>>
>>> Good for you - I agree with you 100%.
>>>
>>> -S-
>>
>> I think we can all agree that food is even more vital to our health than
>> is birth control. After all this is R.F.C. Why isn't it free with no
>> co-pay or deductible?
>>
>
> Some methods of male birth control have never been available under a
> health plan to my knowledge. However, female birth control does seem to
> require a physician's supervision at least and an implant can only safely
> placed by a physician and thus a health plan should cover these.

Chemist shops here give free condoms on request.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/