REMEMBER POOR FLUKE..who can't afford $9.00 a month for contraceptives.. read on...

It was plain from the outset that Fluke was just another libveral activist who allowed herself to be used as a pawn by the liberal machine. They have used this tactic for decades, when the majority of the citizens are not in support of their position, plant an activist, cause a fuss, and get through litigation what they can't get through legislation. This not only distorts the real issue, the government forcing someone to pay for something they object to, but it serves as a great distraction for all of Obama's failures.
Personally, I just don't see where contraception is a "right" to be paid for by me and other taxpayers, and/or insurance purchasers. Even the most hardened liberal has to realize that NOTHING is for free, someone pays. I never realized pregnancy was a disease requiring treatment. Obesity is a "disease" let's provide free treatment, gym memberships and diet counseling for obese people. Alcoholism is a "disease", let's provide free treatment and Jack Daniels for all alchololics. How about smokers, the drug addicted, make the hospitals throw open the doors and treat them all for free. Of course we all know, someone would have to pay, and it would be all those who assume the responsibility of caring for themselves who pay for insurance to take care of themselves. I just fail to see where anyone gets off believing it is their "right" to force me to pay for their contraception pills. And yes, I feel the same about paying for Viagara for men. We as a society have gotten off the track somewhere. We no longer want to even attempt to be responsible for our own choices, and we EXPECT everyone else to be responsible for picking up the tab to bail us out.
I just wonder sometimes about some of these women who complain they can't afford the couple bucks a month for birth control pills. I bet many times you see them standing around with a cigarette in their fingers, spending $5.00 a day or more to smoke. Don't try to tell me it ain't so, I've worked a lot of temp jobs over the past few years and I've seen it all the time, complaining about can't afford this or that, but have fancy painted fingernails and smoke over a pack a day. Be honest here, it's usually not about "accessability" or "affordability" but it's about priorities. I should buy your pills so you can afford to buy cigarettes. Hmmm. I have a problem with that, and you should too.

So conservatives' answer to women who can't afford oral contraception is that they should rely on the organization that the conservatives are trying to defund? Brilliant. I see how it is a problem, since no rational person would buy that argument.
Not to mention that even if all oral contraception cost $9, which it doesn't and if the affordable prescription program was available in every state, which it isn't, the total budget of Planned Parenthood wouldn't cover contraception for all uninsured women in US for more than a third of the year. And that's without taking underinsured women into account or that any and all private retail businesses that have the program could decide tomorrow that they aren't making enough money with it and suspend it.

There are oral contraceptives that cost more than $100 a month, so I would expect any person with basic knowledge of arithmetic to be able to figure out that women who say that they spend $1000 annually on contraception probably aren't buying oral contraception that costs $9 or even $30 a month. Seems conservatives still haven't mastered fourth grade arithmetic.

You can afford contraception and it doesn't cost $1000 per person in your household. So neither your insurance coverage, nor your wife and daughter are relevant to the topic under discussion.

What concerns proof that religious groups did not cover contraception for medical reasons then it was presented in Fluke's testimony, though if that wasn't enough for you feel free to contact Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice I'm sure they'll be more than happy to provide you with more proof. However I don't believe that even if you met any and all women who Sandra Fluke mentioned in her testimony you'd believe them.

And regarding what Catholic church said then it's not worth the paper its written on. This is the same organization that said that condoms would cause more AIDS and so far I have not heard any mea culpas from it in that regard or for other lies they've told over many years. They've made no effort, issued no edicts or decrees telling Catholic institutions to make contraception coverage for women's medical issues any kind of priority so no I don't believe what they said even for one second.
Catholic church has lied in the past and there is no reason to believe they aren't doing so now.

What concerns Sandra Fluke she was testifying on behalf of other women, which is why she did not mention herself. You don't have the first clue about what contraception she uses or what she uses it for. So you are speaking purely from ignorance. Same kind of ignorance that tells you and religious groups that all women use contraception exclusively for "recreational sex".

I'm not sure what you were trying to say by mentioning that oral contraceptives have side effects, but as far as I know virtually all medication has side effects so by that argument insurance shouldn't cover any medications. And by the way, giving birth has a higher chance of resulting in stroke than taking oral contraception.

Finally, you are wrong about funding for faith-based initiatives. The regulations tell the religious groups receiving funding how they have to conduct themselves to qualify for it. The religious institutions receiving the funding cannot discriminate who their charitable efforts serve by law.
On the other hand, the regulation that stipulates that insurance companies have to cover contraception DOES NOT tell religious groups how they need to conduct themselves, what they "believe", or what they "allow".