Okay, would you rather the money we're putting into the healthcare system pay for women to spend $30 or less a month, with the insurance provider picking up the rest of the tab on contraceptives, which really aren't THAT expensive, or would you rather put money in to pay for all the ensuing pregnancies, diseases, hospital bills and child-related care for people who have children because they don't have access to the contraceptives? Maybe I'm missing your point. Then again, I'm just liberal enough that I think this is a good idea.
I still don't see how this has anything to do with religious organizations. If they take out an insurance policy for their workers, in whatever capacity, they have to allow for contraceptives. For instance - my aunt (very Jewish) is the HR manager for a nunnery. Go figure. The nuns might not take contraceptives (after all, they're supposed to be celibate) but my aunt has no affiliation with that religious inclination and thus should not be held by their strictures simply because she is being paid to fill out their paperwork. If religious organizations are afraid that their own congregants will start using contraceptives and acting in lascivious ways, maybe they should rethink what they're doing.
I still don't see how this has anything to do with religious organizations. If they take out an insurance policy for their workers, in whatever capacity, they have to allow for contraceptives. For instance - my aunt (very Jewish) is the HR manager for a nunnery. Go figure. The nuns might not take contraceptives (after all, they're supposed to be celibate) but my aunt has no affiliation with that religious inclination and thus should not be held by their strictures simply because she is being paid to fill out their paperwork. If religious organizations are afraid that their own congregants will start using contraceptives and acting in lascivious ways, maybe they should rethink what they're doing.