Yes, I read both of those two posts. Latte outlined the importance of Birth control. I never denied that Birth Control can be considered important or that it has a multitude of uses besides preventing pregnancy.

As for your post, it still seems a bit flawed. The money to pay for birth control has to come from SOMEWHERE. The insurance will cost more if it has to cover birth control than if it doesn't, because there is more to pay for. And more expenses put towards employees would require reduced wages. You don't need to be an actuary to understand that. If there's more risks and expenses associated with something, I will charge more. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, so they can't take a net loss.


I also don't understand why Latte says Hobby Lobby providing birth control would give women more options. By not providing it, women have the option to either purchase it, or not purchase it and use their money on something else. By providing it, women are forced to take reduced wages as a result, even if they do not wish to take advantage of birth control. If anything, its less options. Hobby Lobby's decision not to provide birth control doesn't prevent them from acquiring it if they want it.

It's just coming out of their salary anyways. If you're going to argue that its a need, and that it isn't fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead? If there's more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference. Some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits. Why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal? That seems far more useful in protecting women's rights IMO. The including of birth control under Obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already poor wage inequality.