Perhaps contraceptive cost is not expensive to you, but it is to very many and price can also depend on type, brand, etc. These are not "one size fits all" medications or options. It's not that easy.

@Rockwood 25

And yet you seem to be looking for a one-size-fits-all solution for yourself and everyone else.

People and companies must be free to choose not to participate. Jay Nixon has voted against individual freedom.

As for the school issue, the homeowners knew what district they were buying into. They have every right to move into the Rockwood District if they like. School districts greatly affect property prices. It's all about choice and personal responsibility. Nixon did right on this issue by the people of both school districts and the homeowners.

@Rockwood 25

That's an excellent point, Rockwood 25. Just as you know what your employer will and won't cover when you get hired on. So, personal responsibility if fine for a person with school-age children, but not for you.

Interesting.

Exactly, Kristy. If this excemption is allowed for contraceptives, it would open the door for other religions that do not accept any medical interference. The law cannot pick one religion and one medication; it would have to make exemptions for all religions for what would be against their conscience.

The price of the contraception is the problem. It isn't even possible for government involvement to make it any cheaper. Do you just not care as long as you think someone else pays for it?
Why is it that you can have your beliefs, but others should let go theirs and pay for yours? Why can't they have their beliefs? What makes yours more valid than theirs?
"can deny their coverage of a medication or procedure" - Insurance companies already do that, and it's not the same thing. The slippery slope is forcing them to go against the religious freedom that built this country. Freedom isn't forcing someone to pay for your contraception. Freedom is the option not to. Freedom is what you are promised, not contraception.
That statement is based on the idea that everyone else should pay for your medical (even when it's not medical), whether they like it, agree, or not. Pretty enlightened & tolerant, isn't it?
You don't need everyone else to pay your bills for you, you've just been told you do. Whether you believe it or not, it would be cheaper for you to pay for your own, than to pay for everyone else's.
The people that oppose this kind of government take over aren't the ones taking from you. They are on your side, whether you are or not.
Some people actually understand where the slippery-slope is. If you don't, don't criticize those who do.
We should not need to "cowtow" to those that can't see past what they think they'll be getting for "free", when it's just not possible.

Great point, Kristy. You have the freedom to choose to or not to work for whomever you want in America. Don't work for someone you think has a stupid policy.

Seems pretty simple to me.

I was just trying to explain to someone the concept of "reductio ad absurdum".
Thank you.

I agree. This is how people manage their families. Who can afford to raise 10 children in this economy? Add to that the risk involved with pregnancy adding to health care costs. I have a better idea. What if insurance companies quit paying for Viagra? After all, if God wants someone to make a baby, he will help the male without artificial assistance -- right? That won't happen because it is males making a big issue about contraceptive coverage. I never thought our society would return to an attitude of "barefoot and pregnant," but that's what is happening here.

Really???? Really??? You need to get a life

@Kevin Lane

Too bad you lack understanding of the concept. Tell your friend to find a new mentor.

@Karen Clark

Can you please explain how allowing people to choose their own contraception (or lack thereof) is "barefoot and pregnant"? What in the world does that even mean?

It's not society's responsibility to make sure you can live your life they way you wish. It's YOUR responsibility. I never thought our society would become a collective with people calling for more, but there you are.

Your employer pays as much or more for your insurance than you do (often forgotten), yet doesn't get a say in it?
You still think you're getting something for free, and somehow think you are entitiled to it at someone else's expense. Your personal life is not the responsibility of that employer, it's your respnsibility.
You still pretend that contraception is a medical necessity that should be covered by someone else. There are a lot of "elective" procedures that insurance doesn't pay for, what's next, breast enhancement, someone getting their lips done? Where does it end if you don't draw a line at elective? The rest isn't moot, you just found a reason to quit listening. Exactly why you still don't understand.
Remember when employers used to have to out-do other companies for the best employees using these compensation packages? You could go find a better paying job, with "better" or at least more fitting benefits. The people who changed that, (and created an 8.8% unemployment rate from 5.4%) are the same ones you think can help you, now. Unfortuanately, that's the only kind of help they can give you. They've created fewer jobs, and less competition for employees. They took away your options, and now you think they can provide more?
This is the point that no one will ever address. How exactly does making healthcare more expensive save you any money? People will say it's cheaper, but they can't explain how unless they dismiss the very methods of paying for all of this.

Excuse me. The employer wasn't required to provide the service until Obamatax came along.

Somehow, and God only knows how this is possible, humanity has survived for thousands of years without employer covered contraception.

Oh how in the world did we do it!?

Or the special needs of those women. Or make a distinction between those cases & others.
The point again is: the cost.
The cause cannot be the solution. It's not even possible, ever, regardless of the example.
Not knowing or understanding how we got here is the only way people can think this is a good idea. If you understand that, then you understand that this is only asking for more of the same. We can fix it, but not with more of the problem.
You are also assuming that this will make it cheaper.
Ok then, show me an occasion where getting the government more involved in something has made things cheaper or easier on the people. Especially working people and their employers. Go.

Yes, why not allow companies to choose what they will and won't provide, or what they will and won't specialize? Do you really think you or Jay Nixon is qualified to make decisions for everyone else?

Well...based on your comment, I guess you do. Frightening.

you go Kevin everything you said is so true. The government needs to get out of my life and out of my bedroom. Oh and you can get the pill at walmart or target for 9 bucks pay for it your self people

@Rockwood 25

No private innovation made those things cheaper. Large public demand made them cheaper. Your opening sentence is simply wrong.

Excellent analogy!

Actually if you work for the Govt (ie Military) they can, in fact, tell you where you are NOT allowed to vacation. Had a friend who was a Nuclear Launch officer and during the 12 years he held that position, he was forbidden from travel outside the US - security risk. Soooo your analogy only proves that employers should be permitted to choose what will and will not be covered under ins plans that they are footing the bill to pay.

@NotaNative, Close but nope. Military still didn't have a say in specifics at all and not for all military, for small group. How vacation is spent up to individual. Also how it should be between an individual and their health practitioner.

Rockwood, NASA is a "civilian" organization funded by tax dollars. It does not have open books & it does not mean the government necessarily ended their space program.
The government gave us cheaper computers & calculators? No, just like they didn't make VCR's & Word Processors cheaper. As more were sold, and the initial capitol was recovered, they naturally got cheaper, and eventually became obsolete, just like nearly every other product. If you mean in schools, you paid for those, likely in state AND Federal taxes, meaning they cost more.
Note: NASA & Calculators go back an awful long way. With the endless increase in involvement since then, it's interesting that you had to go back that far to find an example.

L J, Are you saying we need to pay for your vacation now? No, you're not. Because they are not the same. Inside your employer insurance package is a list of things they cover, and that's the list. Anything else is not covered, and making them cover everything is neither logical nor feasible. Your analogy doesn't work, they would have to be paying for your gambling, hookers & blow for it to apply.
You want your employer to be able to provide better benefits, it takes less government, not more. More is the reason they no longer CAN provide the kinds of benefits & perks they used to, not to mention, the reason why it takes way more than 1 income to run a household these days. There is a ton of evidence on this relationship all the way back to the middle-late 70's.

To Everyone:
There are a lot of different means of birth control, some are even safer in many ways. You can choose to go the route of drugs & chemicals & surgeries if you like. But that choice should not cost me, and it certainly shouldn't cost everyone, much less require government assistance on the highest level.
Oh, and since there DO happen to be many other & even safer methods that require no medicine (unless it's a 1-time cost), maybe it's not even medicine, ever thought of that? Yes. You always thought about it like that. That is until someone told you someone else is going to pay for it, then it became "medicine".

Great analogy! I think it should be betweem the person and his Dr. NOT the insurance company or the man next door saying you hsould not have soch and sich treatment because it goes against his perceptions. Leave it to the medical professional who has gone to school for WAY more years than more insurance people have!

Wow. Some would say that those who misdirect others and nullify the collective activities of the Supreme Court and Congress along with the President were doing evil. That's a pretty rough word to be tossed about, especially regarding so many over such a long period of time. Not all on-line is factual or well documented. Perhaps a wider breadth of reading could be useful.