If you want birth control for sex, go to the store a block away. Three condoms are cheaper than a beer.
If it wasn’t cheap, birth control is still not a viable candidate for insurance, because insurance is for rare issues, which affect some people or manifest at irregular times: “high-cost, low-probability,” so they say. After all, do you remember the last premium you paid for food insurance? Moreover, if birth control could economically be covered as insurance, coverage plans would already have them. But they don’t.
And birth control remains cheaper than a beer, so the point is moot.
What if you prefer prescription birth control? Then how about first lowering government regulations on birth control and government barriers to pharmaceutical entry, so the cost might naturally decrease?
Let’s say the cost of prescription birth control remains too high, and you still want it. For sex. Get a pack of condoms …it’s cheaper than a beer. Or earn some money if you want to go with the pill. Or cut down on the sex, like you might cut down on a beer in similar financial circumstances.
But let’s say you have a disease that requires treatment with birth control pills.
Well that’s a horse of a different color! Say, what’s the status of insurance policies with exceptions for contraceptives not intended to prevent pregnancy? I know of at least one such policy. According to Sandra Fluke, such a “prescription is technically covered by Georgetown insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.” (4:15)
These are just some of the things one might consider before violating our fellow citizens’ First Amendment immunities.
PS: To Mr. Rush Limbaugh, Ms. Fluke is not a “slut.” There are many words for someone who plays fast and loose with other peoples’ money, but “slut” is not one of them.
Tripple Check 