This +1000. I always try to stress this point when I argue on Gawker sites. There are a few facts we know of....

You don't blow a 5th round draft pick on a punter with a team with as many holes as the Vikings have.

Lets start with Viagra itself which according to multiple studies(here and here) is effective for women and is being prescribed to women.

And unmarried women retain access to their libido enhancers so this is clearly not about extra marital sex which the church forbids for both sexes... my previous posts explains this in greater detail

If someone does I think the church should be able to make an exception on that case but I doubt it would because it may assume that that would be used as a gaping loop hole and because regardless of why bc is prescribed it still prevents birth.

If contraceptive vasectomies are covered then yes you have a point especially if female tube tying isn't.

The insurance company doesn't have the same interests in lower prices for itself or for the entire marketplace as you or the government does. The insurance company simply passes on higher prices to your disinterested employer who first spreads it around a larger employee base and then takes it out on you with lower…

I have no idea why the "hormonal" qualification, the church isn't that making that distinction?

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.

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.