Here we go again! As usual, The Times is overplaying the point.
“In the lawsuit, filed by the state of Pennsylvania, the judge said the rule would cause irreparable harm because tens of thousands of women would lose contraceptive coverage.”
Within the context of this article, “losing contraceptive coverage” doesn’t mean women wouldn’t have access to it. Rather it means they must pay for it themselves instead of having other citizens pay for it. How much are we talking about? In my health plan, the prescription co-pay (after deductible) would be $15 for three months. For Medicaid recipients, there is no deductible, and the co-pay is $4. Putting aside the reasonableness of all of our citizens being responsible for their own medication, do these amounts of money sound like they would cause “irreparable harm to tens of thousands of women?”
95% of US Citizens have mobile phones and pay at least $30/month for service. If contraception is as critical as the media portrays, and losing free contraception would cause “irreparable harm,” dare I suggest it would be reasonable for those who can’t afford contraception to give up their mobile service in order to pay for it? What it sounds like is The Times is making an argument citizens have a right to free contraception. I’m pretty sure that’s not in The Constitution.
“It is difficult to imagine a rule that ‘intrudes more into the lives of women.’”
Huh? Expecting citizens to pay for their healthcare is intruding into their lives? I don’t want to intrude on anyone’s life. But it’s OK for them to reach into my pocket to pay for something I find morally wrong? That sounds like the intrusion is on the other foot.
From The New York Times: Court Temporarily Blocks Trump Order Against Contraceptive Coverage
Leave a Reply