Male bc exists and so does female libido medications. Your reasoning is simply suggesting that women are being discriminated against because they don't have penises and in a sense that is certainly most unfair. In an ideal world everyone should have one penis and one vagina and periods.

Oh sorry this is only my personal theory backed up by market observations and the mechanisms and psychology of price movements. I simply know that the further you are detached in time or direct interaction with the price of a good the more easily I can raise prices without repercussion. Imagine what happens if I hold…

Yes it wouldn't fly because there is no precedence for that so it is picking a battle it believes it can win. As I said there is precedence for denying coverage by the procedure or function of medication see lasik or vitamins ... There is no precedence on doing this by demographics of the patient. The church would try…

Clearly the pills women use for bc doesn't apply to men so its discriminatory in the same way menopausal medication is discriminatory to men. As I said if the church covered male contraceptives or denied female viagra you will have a point. It doesn't so you don't have a point.

Glad to know jezebel is capable of such nuanced thinking. Thank you!

That more or less sums it up except that they prefer you do so within marriage and not prior to it or with your mistress or mister.

Those are true statements but also non sequiturs and irrevelant to the question at hand... see my last reply to a similar point.

I see your point but that is a completely different discussion. You are essentially saying the church should apply it policies based on marital status ie viagra for married men and women and no bc for all.

I see your point but that is a completely different discussion. You are essentially saying the church should apply it policies based on marital status ie viagra for married men and women and no bc for all.

The church is not against getting women pregnant. It's actually quite strongly in favor hence it's draconian stance on bc. All sorts of erections lead to pregnancy. No type bc does.

Sorry you're not making any sense. First of all, the question here is if the church's position is logically consistent not whether it is right or wrong.

Don't really find that ironic since it is consistent with their ideology. Viagra is the opposite of bc. If they were against both that will be illogical. Also if they were against the female versions of viagra that would be inconsistent

You're all missing the more salient point. The more important question is who is covering BC good for ? The answer is not the people who need it the most.

Also great for your immune system? heroine the catch is only in moderation.

Not a dunk

But isn't Obama just as white as he is black.

"I just don't get what is odd about a cross-posting that involves pretty much EVERYONE ON THE PLANET."

OK so the OP made an accusation that I think most of us can see is probably unfounded but I fail to see why the Jezebel clan is all of a sudden taking offense like someone suggested we repeal Women's Suffrage.

But subcutaneous fat and the more dangerous belly fat are strongly co-related. Anyway, the reason why we should treat everyone with respect certainly doesn't depend on whether or not the latest research on fat concludes obesity is life extending or shortening.

But thats my point, tanking is a concept alive and well in the hearts and minds of the media because its something to debate and may be within perennially good teams simply because they maintain a healthy skepticism about the competition. In practice I doubt it happens in the NBA or NFL in any significant way.