A combination of the two, I suppose. My wording was unnecessarily harsh; the first six words were the throwaway part of my post and the last bit was what I considered questionable.Because of the idea that life begins at conception, or because of the notion that they would use their religious beliefs as a factor when deciding something that affects others?
Ah, very well. In my opinion (which admittedly is somewhat uninformed about the topics involved), I think it really depends on the type of contraceptive being covered. I think religious companies have a valid point in not wanting to provide thinks like Plan B, which essentially causes a miscarriage/ kills any fertilized embryo. Now, I don't want to argue whether or not that constitutes life or what have you, but I can definitely see the religious concern with providing such contraceptives.
I was approaching it from a cost/common sense standpoint. I don't really see why company health care should cover condoms, contraception pills, abortions, etc -- that has nothing to do with the health of the person in question.^ Abstinence is free. If you can't afford a kid, buy contraception. If you can't afford contraception -- sorry, you shouldn't have sex. I once read that starving teens in Africa use plastic bags. If it's good enough for them... I have no problem whatsoever with contraception or abortion but I do have a problem with stupid people having their stupid decisions subsidized. -- ^very rarely, it actually does, at which point you can throw this argument out.