There’s quite a lot coming from the political left about the “controversial” ruling handed down by the Supreme Court about the contraception mandate. They are taking to Twitter to lament the Christian imposed sharia law facilitated by the Court. There’s the renewed war on women, the denial of women access to vital and necessary methods of birth control. But this shows either their ignorance, or their willful deceit on the issue.
Hobby Lobby still, and will continue to offer 16 of the 20 FDA approved contraceptive methods, including ‘the pill’. The four options the retailer protested providing are those which will terminate, or may terminate an already fertilized egg.
So what exactly is the issue?
Sifting Reality 
“So what exactly is the issue?”
Sex without consequences. Or, what is more likely, is the position too many take that somehow sex is not only recreational (it can be in the proper context: real marriage), but somehow life threatening to do without. We HAVE to have sex. We can’t live without having sex for sex’s sake. One troll refers to me as the “SexNazi” (based on the Soup Nazi episode of Seinfeld) simply because I suggest self-control and character in issues of human sexuality.
Some idiot on a call in radio show made the snide suggestion, in a failed attempt to sound clever and superior, that the right has no problems with vasectomies being covered by insurance plans so men can have sex without consequence, but women can’t have abortion inducing drugs. But the idiot isn’t so clever. A better parallel would be tubal litigation, which I believe is covered in the same way as vasectomies. They are, of course, gender specific procedures of the same type.
But I don’t think vasectomies or tying tubes should be covered, either. And contraceptives? Absolutely not. These things have nothing to do with why insurance exits in the first place, and what’s more, pregnancy is the result of willful activity of choice, not a disease that is acquired without choice.
My position is and has been that birth control should not be covered by insurance for the purpose of contraceptives. I don’t know this to be true, but I’m guessing the tertiary uses of bc pills for other medical reasons can be taken care of using other specific medications. This means there would be no reason to use bc pills since there’s other meds that cover the other uses. If not then cover it only for those side uses.
But you are right. The political left, and many in the middle and right behave and believe in such a way that limiting ones sexual life is anathema. It’s not even a thought that’s crossed their mind that their sexual desires should be measured so long as there’s a willing other party.
I find it amusing that men’s birth control is NEVER mentioned. SO women should have free birth control but men have to pay for their own condoms?!?! That’s pretty darned sexist!