Surely our insurance racket overlords want women to use contraception.

[elehhhhna]

It's way cheaper than paying for maternity care.

Why haven't they shut this down already?

[tyne]

1. I've wondered

the same thing. Maybe it's time to start emailing some companies.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Which non-Catholic insurance companies are refusing to cover BC?

I'm honestly not aware of any.

[kestrel91316]

5. AZ is passing a law that will make it illegal for ANY insurance company

to pay for abortions and I assume birth control is next. The insurance companies won't have any say in it. And since the corporations essentially favor the dominionist plan to remove women from the public sphere and put them back in the home like some 1950s utopia, they sit back and let it happen.

Women who can't control their reproduction will have a hard time keeping their jobs. THIS is the goal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. "I assume birth control is next"

Assumption may not be our friend in this fight.

"corporations essentially favor the dominionist plan to remove women from the public sphere"

So how do you feel about the passing of anti-Sharia laws?

[kestrel91316]

9. I see no need to explicitly single out MUSLIMS. Our greatest enemy in this country is CHRISTIAN

fundamentalists. A well-written law clarifying that NO religion may impose itself on others would be what we need.

When was the last time a Muslim tried to blockade a women's health clinic or bomb one or assassinate a doctor who provides abortions?

(crickets chirping)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. I dunno, do they have different priorities?

When was the last time christians got into running street riots with police? Maybe OWS is the biggest violent threat. Anybody can make silly arguments about any group that wish to oppress with blanket condemnations. I had hoped once the previous administration left office the fear-mongering would stop.

[get the red out]

3. But maybe not the hospital overlords

Or corporate overlords, who want more and more consumers.

[gkhouston]

4. It's a back-door way into undermining the Affordable Health Care Act.

If employers don't have to provide insurance coverage on "moral grounds", what else will some employers be allowed to call "moral"? Pretty much anything that's expensive, IMO, which will lead to even more people without insurance.

[Turbineguy]

6. The idea is to make the current system completely dysfunctional.

Then it can be replaced with a system even worse. Goldman Sachs is probably working on some sort of derivative driven insurance system which will net them $1877.56 for every person who dies.

[Arkansas Granny]

8. Because they know that most women will continue to use contraception

whether insurance pays for it or not.

[just1voice]

10. Insurance racket overlords only care about refusing coverage, not costs

The 1st thing an insurance company ever asks itself when receiving a claim is "how can we refuse coverage on this"? Then they get busy acting on it.