cslos77
cslos77
cslos77

It's not really that slippery: is your employer obligated to cover your "preferred" choice of protective ski gear to help you prevent breaking your leg? Or your preferred winter clothing to prevent you from getting sick?

Yes, I agree that it sucks, but I don't believe that an employer should be forced to cover you for the consequences of things that are your choice (whether their reasons are religious or not is irrelevant). You don't choose to get sick or need dental surgery, but you do choose to have sex. Sex is a perk, not a right

It's not hard to get proof from a doctor if one needs contraceptives for health reasons as opposed to just recreation. And if getting pregnant is dangerous for an individual then this would qualify under health reasons.

If it's for a health issue then, yes, it should be covered, no argument here, but the above rant doesn't mention using birth control for health issues, only the impact the court decision could have on women's sexual freedoms.

But the (very good) reasons you list aren't what this rant is about, which is clearly about funding the use of contraceptives to prevent pregnancy (and how not having it provided for you means you're being treated as sub-human somehow.)

Getting pregnant isn't an illness or injury. The easiest way to not get pregnant is to abstain, or if you choose to have sex then do so, but the costs of avoiding pregnancy should be on the couple themselves not their employer(s). Unless of course a company chooses to offer such compensation.