In article >,
James Silverton > wrote:

> 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.

Almost every health plan does cover those. Even Hobby Lobby covers 16
types. Just not the 4 abortifacients. Why is birth control free with no
co-pay or deductible?