It’s about liberty, and the right to not be forced to pay for things you find objectionable. People already have superb access to all kinds of contraception. It’s a simple drive to the grocery store or pharmacy.
Two great must read-columns.
Harsanyi: Your absolute right to free condoms – The Denver Post: It’s always curious to watch the champions of “choice” decide what choices to champion and what choices to dismiss for the common good.
It’s Not about Contraception – The Freeman: How exactly was the liberty to use contraception jeopardized by the Catholic exemption? In no way would a woman’s freedom in this respect be infringed simply because her employer was free to choose not to pay for her contraceptive products and services. (See last week’s TGIF on why volitional acts such as contraception and other preventive measures are neither free nor insurable.) Yet advocates of Obamacare insist on conflating these issues. They repeatedly portray opposition to forced financing of contraception as opposition to contraception itself. (Alas, some conservatives have encouraged this conflation.) Must the difference really be spelled out? This sort of argument is nothing new, of course. In The Law (1850), Frederic Bastiat noted that advocates of government-run schools accused those who opposed them of being against education itself.