Timothy Lee, Latest Mansplainer on the Birth Control Benefit, Gets It All Wrong


It all started with puppets.

A few days ago, the women’s rights group Ultraviolet sent out a satirical video highlighting how absurd it is to let bosses make private decisions for their employees and deny them access to the birth control coverage to which they are legally entitled. In the video, Creepy Puppet Boss and Creepy Puppet Judge follow a married woman with kids into her bedroom, complain about paying for all the sex she will be having with her husband, and lie about contraception being the same thing as abortion. It’s all very cute and horrifying.

tweeted about it. Then Vox Senior Editor Timothy Lee tweeted back with this:

And, well, it caused a kerfuffle. People questioned Ezra Klein’s judgment for hiring Lee at Vox, Klein’s journalism startup that promises to “explain the news”; Planned Parenthood jumped in and explained to the explainer why the contraception mandate is needed; and of course trolls from both sides leaped out of the bushes begging to be fed.

Lee, it should be noted, is a libertarian technology writer who almost certainly won’t cover reproductive health for Vox. He’s also a nice guy with whom I’m casually acquainted in person. But he was still very wrong about the issues surrounding the birth control benefit, and he drew attention to why a lot of people are still very wrong about it, even mere days before the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on whether corporations have religious freedom that they can use to curtail their employees’ freedom.

According to Lee, women are “free” to “pay for their own birth control” if they choose. Thus, “luckily,” there are no real barriers to getting contraception. Great—problem solved! Birth control isn’t illegal, so it’s a party at the pharmacy! Cast off your chains and open your wallets, oh ye of the unfettered access!

ExceptWe already pay for birth control, with our monthly insurance premiums and with the labor that earns us our health coverage if we are insured through our employer.

Insurance is required to do certain things for us in return for those often exorbitant premiums, and right now one of those things is providing coverage of numerous forms of basic primary health care, including basic contraceptive and reproductive health care, without a copayNot free.

Simply put, people who say women are getting “free birth control” don’t know what they’re talking about. Premiums aren’t cheap, nor is birth control if we don’t have insurance; it can easily run from $600 or more per year just for prescriptions, never mind doctor’s visits.

Women who don’t have much money to begin with aren’t as “free” to spend it, as Lee assumes; indeed, 55 percent of women report experiencing a time when they could not afford to use birth control consistently. Not using birth control consistently (depending on how inconsistent you are and how false your sense of security is) is, in the worst cases, probably not much better than not using it at all.

It’s absurd that many of us depend on employers for health care, but it’s what we’re stuck with, and if health care is going to be a part of our wages, it should be treated that way. Employers can’t decide how their employees can spend their paycheck, and they also can’t dock an employee’s pay because they don’t like what she does in the doctor’s office.

Make no mistake: Denying women contraceptive coverage that they are legally entitled to, forcing them to pay much more out of pocket than they otherwise would have, amounts to a pay cut.

It’s also a lousy idea, because an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of, um… baby? You know what I mean. Pregnancy is incredibly expensive, and unintended pregnancy even more so, for both women and society—much more than the cost of making sure unwelcome pregnancies don’t happen in the first place. The public health and individual benefits of access to contraception are well established, and there is no reason to treat birth control any differently than other forms of preventive care.

Now, the option to deny women this opportunity is supposed to be about religious liberty. But in all the hand-wringing over the souls of secular corporations like Hobby Lobby, many forget that employees—flesh-and-blood people, not abstract entities—have religious liberty too.

Moreover, why are we taking seriously the “conscience” claims of an organization that, until the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became controversial, actually covered emergency contraception for its employees through its insurance plan?

It’s funny, isn’t it, that there has been so much public outrage over an issue that just happens to be about helping women determine their sexual and reproductive autonomy. Is there any other procedure covered by insurance but objected to by a religious minority—blood transfusions for Jehovah’s Witnesses, or vaccinations for Christian Scientists—that we would seriously consider letting members of those groups not just refuse to use themselves, but also deny to others who don’t share their beliefs? Why do we give so much deference as a society to people with sincerely held beliefs that just happen to harm women, and why do we consider letting them set such a dangerous precedent that could so easily restrict other freedoms in the name of an employer’s “conscience”?

It’s worth noting that birth control isn’t the only preventive care that the ACA requires to be covered without copays. There’s maternity care and well-baby visits, prostate exams for men, cervical cancer screenings for women, and on and on. The maternity care coverage got some pushback at first too. (Not so much with well-baby exams, but that’s stigmatization of women’s health care for you.)

Birth control, though, has remained the right’s wedge to try to pry apart the whole system. They’ve framed it as a reasonable accommodation of religious liberty—the least we can do, really. And less-religious conservatives, libertarians, and centrists have started nodding along with them, as Lee seems to be. They’ll point to the limited selection of $9 generic pills at Target and ask, “Why can’t you just use your own money for this?” (Never mind that not all women react well to those select brands, or that some women may do better with an IUD or other method of birth control.)

The thing is, that’s not a question people are bothering to ask about Viagra—which does require copays but is still covered under insurance—or prostate exams, or well-baby visits. The “we’re paying for you to have sex” meme really got off the ground when people got it into their heads that women are getting “free birth control.” C’mon, we can’t have freeloaders, can we? Freedom isn’t “free”!

Except it’s not about the no-copay thing, at least not really. That fueled the fires of indignation, but the religious right is pushing for insurance plans that don’t even cover birth control—and most of them already did, even if they required copays. That’s an extra step back, and one that makes coverage for Viagra that much more awkward to explain.

Most of the people who whine about “paying for your sex life” have probably always done so, just as you have for theirs, unless they’re celibate and never went to the doctor for sexual health checkups—and even then, you probably “paid” for some other personal habit of theirs (except everybody paid less than they would have for themselves in isolation). That’s how insurance works, and that’s how society works.

None of us is an island, and we all pay into a giant pool of money to cover a variety of issues that crop up when people live their lives every day. Driving is pretty dangerous, but you don’t see most people arguing that they’re being required to pay for your poor choices if you get into an accident, or that you can always avoid one by just not driving.

Many of the fundamental problems in this debate boil down to differing understandings of the word “freedom,” not to mention the word “responsibility.” It’s almost a reflex for many conservatives to add the word “personal” in front of both—and to claim the freedom not to be responsible for others.

A friend of mine tweeted that many of her male friends were simply ignorant of how much hormonal birth control can cost women, and that they’ve confessed “how awful they felt when they found [out the] cost of their behavior to women in their lives.” The cost of their behavior. It behooves us to start talking about shared responsibility, not just personal.

Women are not the only people who have sex, whose lives are affected by pregnancy, and whose participation in society will be better and healthier if they can choose when or if those pregnancies happen. So when somebody like Timothy Lee comes along, dismisses cost barriers, and glibly implies that it’s women’s problem to figure that out because they can always just “buy their own” birth control, it exposes views that are a problem for all of us. Birth control isn’t women’s “own,” it’s not like most other purchases, it’s not a luxury, and everybody owns the consequences of making it harder to access.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • Shan

    “Make no mistake: Denying women contraceptive coverage that they are legally entitled to, forcing them to pay much more out of pocket than they otherwise would have, amounts to a pay cut.”

    Exactly that! Because it’s not like premiums will go DOWN at all when contraception gets excised from a plan. So women will pay the same for crappier coverage AND have to pay more out of pocket.

    And let’s not forget the men whose female partners are on their health insurance plans. We don’t normally hear much about or FROM those guys, do we?

  • Barbara421

    Not to mention all those anti-choice folks who want to see abortion numbers go down [which they already are doing, but I digress…], if contraception and reproductive health are easily accessible and have no co-pay with insurance, the end result will be fewer unplanned pregnancies, which will result in, you guessed it, fewer abortions. See how that works?

    • King Rat

      Exactly. Only they want abortion to go down through abstinence only, and we all know how effective that strategy is.

      • Barbara421

        That’s why Baby Grizzly is making 6 figures to speak about abstinence…it worked so well for her. But then agains did

        • HeilMary1

          Mama SnowGrifter is the political gift that keeps on grifting.

    • http://essaressellwye.tumblr.com/ Hershele Ostropoler

      It’s telling that the response to declining abortion numbers is to define “abortion” more broadly.

      • lady_black

        Abortion is inherently incapable of being defined more broadly. That would be similar to trying to define myocardial infarction more broadly. Both are medical terms with a single medical definition. Anyone attempting to *redefine* either one is crazy.

      • Barbara421

        Don’t think the defintion of abortion has changed. It’s terminating a pregnancy, period. You will see numbers going up, as well as women dying from botched butchers & coat hangers, now that all these red states are making SAFE, legal ones near impossible to obtain. Not only that, but by closing so many womens clinics undiagnosed cancers will also take a lot more lives, I’m sure. And making access to contraceptives harder and more costly, these Christian haters can certainly pat themselves on the back for a job well done. Yup, they’re getting their own brand of Sharia law into their states.

      • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

        Where and when did that happen. Source or it did not happen.

        Definition of ABORTION
        1: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:
        a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation—compare miscarriage
        b : induced expulsion of a human fetus

      • Shan

        Hershele may be suggesting that it’s people like Hobby Lobby who are the ones trying to broaden the definition of abortion to include fertilized eggs that don’t implant.

        • Jennifer Starr

          Which is ridiculous, because unless the egg implants, you were never pregnant, and you can’t have an abortion unless you’re pregnant.

          • Shan

            Exactly. But that’s what the HL and Conestoga (possibly, since I’m not as familiar with the latter) suits are based on that are up in front of the SCOTUS right now. Their argument is that any method of contraception that they believe MIGHT prevent implantation is against their “sincerely held religious beliefs” and therefore being required to cover it is a violation of their “religious freedom” under the RFRA of 1993.

          • Arekushieru

            If it PREVENTS implantation, it’s not an abortion, because it didn’t implant. So, therefore, in order for these people to be truthful, they would have to believe that birth control may cause the uterine lining to spontaneously shed sometime in the duration of the pregnancy OR that it will cause genetic abnormalities in the fetus. However, both of these will most likely result in a miscarriage, which is something that anti-choicers have repeatedly DENIED that they’re against. After all, their ‘concerns’ are medical abortions.

          • http://essaressellwye.tumblr.com/ Hershele Ostropoler

            “in order for these people to be truthful”

            Yes, well …

          • Arekushieru

            LOL. And I 100% agree! :P

          • HeilMary1

            Catholic extremists define anything that prevents fertilized eggs from implanting as “abortions”.

          • lady_black

            They can define a penguin wearing a top hat as Fred Astaire. That doesn’t make it so.

        • lady_black

          Yep. Except that is not the definition, and never will be.

          • Shan

            I agree. I was just pointing out that Hershele might be saying something similar but just not as clearly.

            We all know that as soon as the stats for the decline in abortions came out (up to 2008-9 IIRC, correct me if I’m wrong), the pro-life crowd started crowing about the “effectiveness” of all the anti-choice legislation that didn’t actually kick in until 2011 or later and they conveniently didn’t take into account that the birth rate dropped significantly at the same time. It’s part of the same goalpost-shifting.

        • http://essaressellwye.tumblr.com/ Hershele Ostropoler

          Yes, this is what I meant, I should, perhaps, have specified antis’ response is to redefine

          • lady_black

            One small problem with that. Abortion is defined thusly: “The termination of a pregnancy prior to viability by spontaneous or induced means.”
            Notice there is no reference to the failure of a fertilized ovum to implant. That is a non-pregnancy that results not in an abortion, but in a menstrual period.

    • Ella Warnock

      I don’t think fewer pregnancies are what some anti-choicers want at all. A pregnancy, planned or not, puts a woman in her proper place and shows her that biology is her destiny. Never mind that it isn’t always that cut and dried; surely if more women have more kids then they’ll realize it was always their hearts’ greatest desire!
      (if I had a hairball I’d barf it up right now, ugh)

      • Barbara421

        We have 3 cats so I can find enough fur here, and I’ll join you at the barf trough! They just can’t let go of their control, and the power trip that so many men are on. They keep forgetting it’s not their choice, it’s ours!!!!

    • Renfrew Squeevil

      I’ve long believed that most anti-abortion cranks don’t really care about abortion. Well, maybe a little. But what really drives them is the thought of sluts having sex and getting away with it. And “getting away with it” means: no babies, no shame, no coming off like the slutty little sluts that they are, the slutty, nasty sluts, with their no fault, no shame sex. They don’t really care about the poor little unborn babies for the babies’ sakes; they only care about the babies in that babies are a good punishment for women who have sex.

  • fiona64

    I have also noticed that the main objectors (at least in comments) are men who are whining that they have to pay for condoms … and one twit who maintained that if hormonal contraception was preventive in nature, that athletic cups should be covered as well. Neither condoms nor cups require prescriptions, so far as I can tell …

    • KingMeIam

      So you’re against the pill going OTC?

      Why do you hate women so much?

      • fiona64

        It has already been explained to you *repeatedly* why the pill cannot go OTC, but I’ll try to use small words so that you can understand: not every woman can use the same pill.

        Why are you such a dumbass?

      • lady_black

        I have mixed feelings about the pill being OTC. I believe that women could be trusted to obtain advice from a doctor, PA, CRNP, or pharmacist as to what formulation could best benefit their specific needs and even with a prescription drug, there is often a trial and error process. Of course, the religious right would scream bloody murder and file lawsuits. And contraception is not limited to the pill. Some women cannot use them at all and rely on Depo-Provera injections or the IUD, which can never be OTC. I’m totally comfortable with Plan B being available OTC.

      • Shan

        It’s like every day and every disscussion thread is brand new for you, isn’t it?

    • Barbara421

      lgnorant misogynists!

  • http://essaressellwye.tumblr.com/ Hershele Ostropoler

    If an employer offered insurance with contraceptive coverage, but took the price out of the paychecks of people who took advantage of that benefit … there’d still be people defending it, but the issue would be a lot clearer.

    • lady_black

      Yes. That would be clearly ILLEGAL. An employer cannot dock their workers pay without authorization. An employee who contracts for insurance authorizes payroll deduction for the premium. After that, the private health matters of the employee are none of the employer’s business, and the employer NEVER has access to the private health information of their employees. ANY of it. That would be a violation of HIPPA laws. The employers contracts for group rates for their employees, and that is the full extent of involvement. Nothing that happens after that is any concern of the boss.

    • Barbara421

      Well, let’s take Viagra & prostate exams out of my policy then. Why are you such a douchebag Hersh?

    • Shan

      Not offering contraceptive coverage does exactly the same thing. Except it doesn’t change the price of the premiums, it just forces people who use it to pay for it out of pocket. Hence the legal kerfuffle.

  • KeithVa

    Tim Lee was right. Employees can exercise their religious liberty by choosing to buy birth control, and yes, the more things you mandate in coverage, the more it will cost. Birth control is a private good, not a public good. Tim Lee is probably just too rational and systemic (and hence correct), and Emily has a hard time understanding and appreciating his arguments. Like many others who have unconscious bias against rational and systemic people (especially when they’re men), Emily confuses her own bias with a problem on Tim’s part.

    • lady_black

      Birth control. Funding birth control gets a six-fold return on investment regardless of who funds it. Saying it will cause premiums to rise requires a suspension of belief in reality, and is rooted in ignorance. Emily isn’t biased. You are biased and ignorant, and so is Tim Lee.

    • Shan

      LOL! So you’re basically saying that Emily Crockett is just an irrational female?

      • KeithVa

        The irrationality part is relatively important. But yes, a lot of people confuse justifying their bias with making an argument, and Emily made that error, and combined it with an ad hominem attack on Tim Lee.

        • lady_black

          Yeah… NO. I’m choosing to reply here to your comment that is being moderated. Costs of unplanned pregnancy affect businesses the same way they effect the government, so enough of your “that concept is limited to welfare recipients” nonsense. Middle class women who experience an unplanned pregnancy are having the exact same experience as a poor woman. The employer’s insurance costs will go up if he’s covering pregnancy expenses instead of contraception. Add to that the necessity of hiring temporary workers to fill in for female employees on maternity leave, and the addition of new dependents to the group of insured. Your other foolish assertion that only women who are already using contraception would take advantage of a contraceptive benefit is just absurd. First of all, “women who are currently using contraceptives” would include most women. And it makes no sense to think that those who can’t afford contraception out of pocket would balk at having it covered by insurance. In what universe? Exactly how much real-life experience do you have as a woman? Or a health care professional? Contraceptives covered by insurance are not FREE, and I’d appreciate if you would stop referring to them as such. It displays your bias, as you know damned well that insurance isn’t “free.” You PAY for it.

          • KeithVa

            How nice that you reply to a comment that others can’t see. You now suffer from a perceptions problem that you don’t really favor open debate.

            To the extent costs of unplanned pregnancies affect businesses, then businesses can already choose to include contraceptive coverage, and that is not part of the debate, as I certainly don’t mind businesses choosing what to offer their employees in health coverage. Heck, the vast, vast majority of those businesses who would benefit are already covering birth control, unless you want to argue that businesses don’t like making money. So what we’re addressing here is the mandate.

            You also failed to comprehend what i said, and yes I believe the fault is yours for that. I stated that most people who selected into a subsidized contraception program, as outlined in the paper I cited, already used contraception. This peer-reviewed paper was written by people who favor the mandate.

            Most of this mandate covers people who already have contraception, and hence does not generate a large social benefit, because it does not actually induce a lot more women to get contraception. In short, most of the women who want contraception already obtain it. You are not greatly expanding the population of women who take contraceptives…you are just subsidizing women who already take them.

            Mandating contraceptive coverage is a subsidy to women who take contraceptives, and the mandate (as opposed to voluntary decisions by businesses to provide contraception) does increase insurance costs, as would any mandate for more coverage. This comes at the expense of working women who do not take contraceptives, among others.

            I am all for targeted contraceptive subsidies to Medicaid eligible women who clearly need the subsidy and whose pregnancies would clearly cost taxpayers money. But you simply do not have a compelling argument for mandated coverage of contraceptives. And this is true no matter how much you resort to sexist arguments about your gender or my gender.

          • Law

            “But you simply do not have a compelling argument for mandated coverage of contraceptives.”

            This is like saying that no one has an argument for mandated coverage of heart attacks. Birth control is a MEDICAL treatment that should be covered by MEDICAL insurance because that is what medical insurance is FOR. You do not have an argument that medical care should not be covered by medical insurance simply because it is medical care that only extends to women.

          • Shan

            “You do not have an argument that medical care should not be covered by medical insurance simply because it is medical care that only extends to women”

            Exactly. The EEOC outlined that pretty clearly in 2000, didn’t they? That’s one of the reasons why most states already have contraceptive equity laws mandating the same type of contraceptive coverage the ACA does. The ACA didn’t just pop up fully-fledged out of nowhere.

            Here’s a handy-dandy little timeline I found:

            http://www.nwlc.org/resource/guaranteeing-coverage-contraceptives-past-and-present

          • lady_black

            No it will not increase premiums, nor will omitting coverage for contraception lower premiums. It just screws women out of coverage for their medical needs. The insurance companies (whose opinions weighed HEAVILY into the ACA) want to cover contraception, and consider employers who clutch their pearls over the idea as pains in their asses. For the cost of just ONE unplanned pregnancy to the insurer, they can provide a lifetime of contraception. Let me tell you something. The folks who own Conestoga Wood Specialties (who are currently scheduled to be heard Tuesday by the Supreme Court) are currently covering the services they have such “religious objections” to, at the insistence of their insurer. The insurer wishes they would stick to making kitchen cabinets, and leave insurance to the professionals. So do I. Insurance companies do not HAVE religious beliefs, other than what’s best for their bottom line.

          • Arekushieru

            Um, do you not know how the commenting policy on RH Reality Check works? If your comment is waiting to be moderated, there’s a handy-dandy link to the right of minimized comment that allows you to actually see it. If it’s moderated and determined to be inappropriate, it is deleted. So, are we clear, now, that you are simply whining so that you can hear your own voice?

            So, are you saying that companies should be able to choose to offer insurance for prescriptions that prevent people with compromised immune systems from getting sick, unless their sicknesses will ‘clearly’ cost taxpayers (more) money? Because, if not, you ARE a misogynist and a hypocrite. Since ALL pregnancies cost taxpayers more money. And this would just be ONE EXAMPLE where pregnancy is the ONLY medical condition that is treated differently from the rest.

            Under such a system, one would have to wonder how companies that ARE NOT MEDICAL INSTITUTIONS would determine that the pregnancies of women would CLEARLY cost taxpayers (more) money, to your/their ‘satisfaction’, of course. .

            It doesn’t matter if the ‘pool’ of women who take contraceptives is expanding or not. I can’t imagine why you think it would. There is NOT a 100% chance that a woman will not get pregnant as a result of sex. So, those women who are NOT currently taking contraceptives may find they DO need to take it sometime in the future. Oopsies.

            Finally, it IS sexist to penalize women for being penalized. Do you understand that a penalty is something that is IMPOSED upon another. Therefore, the lack of having to deal with the consequences derived from a uterus is NOT a penalty for men. The presence of same IS a penalty, however, for women. And, therefore, in turn, taking away coverage of birth control for religious reasons is a penalty that is imposed on women simply because they DO have to deal with consequences derived from a uterus.

          • smrnda

            Working women who do not take contraception are 1% of the population.

        • nell2

          Ad hominem? What ad hominem attack was made against Tim Lee?

          Emily Crockett never even insulted Tim Lee, much less attacked him personally rather than refute his argument against contraception as good public policy. Emily made point after reasoned point in favor of her position, and while you may disagree with her POV that insurance-mandated contraception is a public good, it is disingenuous to claim that her arguments against Lee’s position constitute an ad hominem attack.

          “…a lot of people confuse justifying their bias with making an argument…”

          Projection, much?

    • nell2

      “Systemic”? “Systemic people”?

      That word doesn’t mean what you think it means.

      Even “systematic” doesn’t make sense in the context used here. Even if Tim Lee is methodical, ordered and organized, it doesn’t necessarily make him correct. Sometimes even logical arguments are wrong. You might want to familiarize yourself with the word “sophistry.”

    • fiona64

      Yet another mansplainer who does not understand that insurance is part of an employee’s compensation package … or that contraception is indeed a public good.

    • smrnda

      Actually, whether the more things you mandate in coverage increase or decrease costs will depend on what things you include or exclude. The impact of all drugs, treatments or therapies is not the same – a plan that excludes one thing that actually would lower costs could in the end cost more than the plan that would include the extra thing.

      Imagine a plan that did not cover anything but ER visits. People would go to the ER (more expensive) than going to the doctor (less expensive.)

  • fredbrack

    Superb, measured response to Timothy B. Lee, Emily. Too often, libertarians seem to have a couple go-to notions that they deploy no matter what the topic. Twitter enables them.

    As a retired newspaperman, I observed Ezra Klein develop Wonkblog at The WaPo with admiration and gratitude. Thus, I have great hopes for Vox. But it’s not going to help Vox if ideologues like Timothy B. Lee blurt out uninformed 140-chacter comments on public-policy topics outside their areas of knowledge.

  • http://aimaiameye.blogspot.com/ Aimai

    Excellent essay. Just really excellent.

  • tumbrel

    Great response/article. Vox is really shooting itself in the foot (repeatedly). Then again, maybe they’re hitting the demographic they’re trying for, which would be sad. Slate already does contrarianism, Broder is dead and doesn’t need to be brought back, and Drudge et al. have the gleeful and dumb misogyny down.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com wetcasements

    Vox is Latin for “trainwreck.”

  • xuinkrbin

    “Make no mistake: Denying women contraceptive coverage that they are legally entitled to, forcing them to pay much more out of pocket than they otherwise would have, amounts to a pay cut.” — Well, no; this could only be true if the Women were receiving the coverage before said denial.

    “Moreover, why are we taking seriously the ‘conscience’ claims of an organization that, until the Affordable Care Act (ACA) became controversial, actually covered emergency contraception for its employees through its insurance plan?” — Because the law does not prohibit “repentance” and, as far as I can tell, the law cannot prohibit it either. Until One presents evidence to show any apparent change of heart is not genuine, the courts are going to presume it is.

    • Jennifer Starr

      Repentance? More like hypocrisy. Their so-called ‘conscience’ wasn’t hurting until they saw a chance to protest ‘big bad obamacare–oh noes, socialism’!!! Eleventy!1!

    • Shan

      “Well, no; this could only be true if the Women were receiving the coverage before said denial.”

      Most states already had what are called “contraceptive equity” laws on the books requiring insurance plans to cover the same types of contraceptives the ACA does. So, yes, it would mean that if the SCOTUS rules against the BC mandate, any employer with a religious exemption could then take that coverage away from their employees. And since it’s not like the insurance premiums would go down or wages go up by what it costs to pay for these drugs and devices out of pocket, it does, indeed, amount to a pay cut. People* would be paying the same amount for the coverage they USED to have but they’d have to pay separately for contraception, effectively paying TWICE.

      *I say “people” because this would also include men whose partners and/or daughters are on their insurance plans.

    • lady_black

      Yeah, let’s just run our justice system based on “feelings.” What could possibly go wrong?