re: #94 goddamnedfrank

The private insurer is “funding the sex life” anyway, and paying more for it if they don’t cover contraception. Pregnancy and the other medical conditions hormonal contraception prevents will always cost more than simply covering the medication. Therefore this line of reasoning presented by Steyn is inherently flawed, why can’t you see that?

I think he’d answer that doesn’t matter. From my read, he’s arguing that it’s a 1st Amendment issue. Reminder: That’s his argument, not mine.