You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 2 p.m.

Ave Maria University suing over federal health care contraception rule

By Julie Baker

Ave Maria University, a Florida-based Catholic institution founded by Domino's Pizza creator Tom Monaghan, is suing over President Barack Obama's law that requires contraception coverage in employers' health care plans, Fort Myers television station NBC2 reported.


Jim Towey

“The federal government has no right to coerce the university into funding contraceptive services that include abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization, in the health plan we offer our employees,” university President Jim Towey said in a news release. “Under the federal mandate Ave Maria University would be paying for these drugs if we complied with the law. So we will not. We are prepared to discontinue our health plan and pay the $2,000 per employee, per year fine rather than comply with an unjust, immoral mandate in violation of our rights of conscience.”

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed suit Tuesday morning on behalf of the Naples, Fla.-based university. Ave Maria is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from a federal court in Florida, because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services demands the university offer health plan services that undermine its firmly-held religious convictions, a news release said.

Towey said the university will still have to pay for the contraceptives, despite the compromise made for Christian institutions that says insurance companies will cover the cost, according to the NBC2 report. "There's no free birth control," he said.

Monaghan founded Ave Maria in Florida in 2003 after Ann Arbor Township planners rejected Monaghan's plans to move the college to Domino's Farms from Ypsilanti and start the university there. In 2006, Ave Maria College in Ypsilanti was closed and joined with the Florida campus.

See a video of university President Jim Towey speaking below.


Michigan Man

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 12:02 a.m.

Very good for Ava Maria University. Character counts. They will prevail in their suit and it really does not matter to me how long it takes for them to crush Obamacare. Standing tall for their convictions. May our good and gracious God bless their efforts.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 7:52 p.m.

This position and those like it are founded in staggering ignorance, and a misogynistic desire to punish women for having sex. What audacity they show, trying to claim that denying preventative health care to a subset of their employees based solely on their sex is the moral choice.

Kevin McNulty

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:31 p.m.

It is not only the Catholic Church that has issues with this: <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3 p.m.

The best thing I can say about Ave Maria U is that it moved to Florida and left us here in Ann Arbor greatly relieved. Ah Catholics, opposed to all forms of contraception AND opposed to abortion under all circumstances..... no wonder they believe in miracles


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:54 p.m.

I think Mr Santorum should put an aspirin between his teeth, and keep it there.


Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : midnight

Thank you, Clownfish, for best post in thread.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:34 p.m.

I was a full supporter of the Affordable Care Act until now. I find it disingenuous on the part of the Obama administration to do this above so many other actions they could have done that would have been so much more helpful to the poor and uninsured. More importantly this action suggests how far this new set of laws could go and that scares me. There is so much said in this comment string and others about separation of church and state. The separation of church and state is simply stating that the government can't institute and mandate a national religion. It does not say that laws can not be written based on the beliefs of the majority. This new federal mandate should be rolled back not just because it is offensive to a religious group. It should be rolled back because it is a blatant attempt to support a political agenda rather than a health care agenda. The HHS mandate is undermining the support independents may have had for the Affordable Care Act and the Obama administration. It is offensive, politically unwise, and likely the undoing of the Obama administration.

Kevin McNulty

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:37 p.m.

In regard to the constitutional protection of religion, it is not just about a national religion. Over the years, many decisions have been made by the SCt on issues pertaining to religion. For example one common issue is opposition to religion related exhibits, like nativities set up in parks. It is up to the court to decide how the religious freedom protection is defined and I reckon that will happen with this issue too.

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 6:04 a.m.

The Catholic Church is a tax-exempt organization. In addition to not paying taxes, it also gets hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus subsidies for its various hospitals and charities. Therefore, some of my tax dollars went to fund child rape within the Catholic organization. Can someone please tell me how I can opt out of paying those taxes? I happen to be morally opposed to child rape, even though some other people apparently aren't. Thanks!

Dog Guy

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:55 a.m.

Obama's owners are clever in choosing to force Catholics to mortally violate their consciences. The administration may lose this case in even a Democrat supreme court, but this gambit will re-elect Obama. The history of the USA begins and ends with Puritans terrified of moral freedom and their cultural and genetic descendants today. The eminent historian Arthur Schlesinger Sr. called anti-Catholicism &quot;the deepest-held bias in the history of the American people.&quot; Even in rural towns, opinions are as bigotedly anti-Catholic as in this smartest of all possible cities, Ann Arbor.

David Briegel

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 5:48 a.m.

Are you truly certain their is a &quot;conscience&quot; involved? And JFK had no trouble with anti-Catholicism so just maybe there might be a little more to this!

rik paavola

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:55 a.m.

As a practicing non-believer, I would like to add my view. In 1992 I had a school teacher girlfriend from Oklahoma who had, at the age of sixteen, been impregnated by a catholic priest and who subsequently was made to have an abortion at the behest of her parish priest &quot;for the good of all.&quot; Apparently, under some circumstances, the church will condone abortion if the perpetrator decides not to use protection. She was the victim, yet made to endure a lifetime of guilt for this &quot;her&quot; indiscretion. Had she the choice to use contraception she probably would have, and all would have been well... And, as a victim of sexual abuse at the age of 11 by a Lutheran minister, I can attest to the duplicity of moral laws as they apply to religion. The fact that the Catholic church has and will pay out millions of dollars to hide and protect sexual dalliances by priests against children, it would seem in their best interests to start condoning the use of contraceptives....if only to protect the priests from further lawsuits. We could discuss further these two simple illustrations as simply &quot;acts perpetrated by ungodly men&quot; rather than &quot; acts of true believers and representatives of god,&quot; but as long as these individuals wear the cloth and are offered the protection of the church they represent, I, for one have to question their moral compass and their ability to make choices for the rest. And to argue that they shouldn't be made to cover contraception costs become best!


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:35 p.m.

The church does not condone abortion. Their are bad apples in every walk of life, as we are all human. We must preserve the freedom of religion and conscience. How would you like to be told you could no longer be a &quot;practicing non-believer&quot;, but had to be a Muslim, or some other religion? You have the right to do this under the first amendment, because that is what your conscience tells you to do.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:22 a.m.

They must not have gotten the memo from Drudge and Limbaugh that this is a big scam played on the GOP by yhe Dems to get them away from talking about the economy, which is improving, so ooops lets not talk about The Republican Party is a Mess, and to the catholic Church. You don't pay taxes on any of that big money you take in, have house cleaning of your own to do and why do you think you are entitled to get everything you want? Please.

Michigan Reader

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 11:19 p.m.

This suit is about Ave Maria University, not the Catholic Church. The church is already exempt from the contraceptive requirement.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.

Catholic hospitals and charities are not-for-profit, literally. They do a tremendous amount of good, and provide a tremendous amount of free care, and rely heavily on donations.

Nikki River

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:57 a.m.

Since a good practicing Catholic would never use contraceptives because the church considers it a sin, then the Catholic Church will never have to worry about their money going to fund contraception.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:31 p.m.

The Church-any church, not just Catholic- would still have to pay for it. Again, the issue, much as the Democratic party would like to make it- is not about contraception. It is about freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. About not letting the state dictate what religions must do against their conscience.

Kai Petainen

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:53 a.m.

ah... the topic of sex and the bible. read Ezekial 23:20 <a href="" rel='nofollow'>;version=NIV</a>

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 6:09 a.m.

Someone should ban this dirty filth from our precious innocent children!!!


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:31 a.m.

&quot;We are prepared to discontinue our health plan and pay the $2,000 per employee, per year fine rather than comply with an unjust, immoral mandate in violation of our rights of conscience.&quot; Then just do it and participate in our society. I mean, surely you asked everyone you hired about all their private health and sexual practices before you hired them or let them come to your shool and they would never do anything that would violate church doctrine so you have nothing to worry about anyway. I mean, you're running a church, not a business, right? Oh, no, you're running a business under the tax shelter of a church! How dare the government treat you like every other business? How rude. Well, I'm sure you've trained lots of EXCELLENT lawyers down there and you'll win your lawsuit and overturn over 130 years of legal precedent. Your students will learn a lot from this.

rik paavola

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 3:40 a.m.

I would suggest that in these economic times we begin to ask ourselves whether churches should not be made to pay taxes since they use our streets, sewers, power, street clearing and other services which most of us pay for. And I agree, they are businesses in every sense of that word... And I find it amusing that when Mr. Monohan attempted to take away the rights of citizens who wished to live in his new town in Florida, ie. taking away condoms, contraception, films, magazines and the like, the city came down on him for denying constitutional rights to those citizens.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:04 a.m.

I find it interesting that no one cares that a health care plan covers prescriptions for ED, but worries about a plan covering contraceptives.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:38 p.m.

Most plans don't cover it unless there is also BPH.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:28 p.m.

The issue is the first amendment-not contraceptives. If the government can state by fiat, that a religious organization has to go against their conscience, then they can start to regulate other things about religions also, and also regulate what our reproductive rights and religious rights must be.

Ron Granger

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:53 a.m.

I oppose our endless state of war. And yet my taxes pay for it. Get over it. And... I should not have to join a religion to get an exemption for my &quot;belief system&quot;. Nor should a religion convey extra privileges or protections.

David Spence

Sat, Feb 25, 2012 : 2:01 a.m.

No one who is promoting a conscience clause has argued that you have to join a religion in order to qualify. I find the implication disturbing that non-religious-affiliated people needn't be concerned about the federal government encroaching on the basic liberties of all Americans.

David Briegel

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:14 a.m.

The difference is clear. The sane people of America desire to have sex ed for our children. Contraception for our families. And abortion in the rare instances when it is required or desired. In other words the sane people want education and choice. The regressives desire to have some guy in a pointy little hat in the bedroom of all the adults in our nation. They KNOW what is best for everyone. They are the forces of darkness and ignorance. And so many of us find totally offensive the desire of a handful of people to impose their will on the citizens of our nation. Freedom of Choice or the forces of darkness. Pretty clear choice!


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:18 a.m.

David, Sex education was taught in Detroit Catholic grade schools in the early 70's. I'm not sure about today.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

&quot;If the young people of the congregation choose not to follow it, they can go to confession and be forgiven&quot; How convenient. I can't tell you how many Catholics I've known who refused to eat meat on Fridays because it was a sin but were fornicating on a regular basis. I pretty sure none of them felt bad about it much less &quot;truly sorry&quot;. A Catholic woman is devout and doesn't use birth control. She's had 8 children already but finally feels like maybe she doesn't have to worry about having any more as her husband is now impotent. Oh, wait, the church says it's okay for him to take a little blue pill. Here comes baby #9! Of course this is just a hypothetical situation.....but probably not. It's sexist, plain and simple. The vast majority of Catholic women have used and want to use birth control. But since men make the rules and men don't have uteruses it will never happen.

David Briegel

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:19 a.m.

The Audacity of Dope! Or is it just dopey? Patriarchal misogyny


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 11:50 p.m.

Next time it will be how many children you can have, or what sex, with forced abortions if your child just happens to be what the state does not require at that time. The government does not belong in the bedroom!

Michigan Reader

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 11:09 p.m.

@Cash--This case is about the religious liberty of Ave Maria University. Nor is the Catholic Church trying to force itself into your bedroom.

rik paavola

Thu, Feb 23, 2012 : 3:29 a.m.

nor does the catholic church!


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:25 p.m.

@Cash- No one says you have to work at a Catholic or religious affiliated job. You can CHOOSE not to.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:28 a.m.

But the Catholic Church doesn't belong in mine either.

Lou Apostolakis

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:49 p.m.

The fixation on the birth control aspect of this controversy is mis-placed. It is the simple fact that the government is intruding on the private lives and rights of individuals and businesses. Today it is the Catholics and birth control. Next time it will be someone else's rights being trampled upon. The constitution spells out that our rights are endowed to us by our creator. The president and certain members of congress believe that that means them.

Ivor Ivorsen

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:40 a.m.

One more thing, nowhere in the United States Constitution are the words &quot;endowed&quot; or &quot;our creator&quot; used.

Ivor Ivorsen

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:21 a.m.

Lou, When you say &quot;today it is the Catholics and birth control&quot; do you mean the 98% of American Catholics who report using birth control methods other than a &quot;natural&quot; method (see link below), or the majority of American Catholics that supported the initial position of the Obama administration on this policy? (see link below). 1. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a> 2. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.

I am a bit confused on the Catholic church's stance. Can married couples have sex in addition to the purposes of procreation? What sexual positions has the church endorsed? Can there be speaking during sex? Is the woman allowed to be on top? What locations are appropriate for sex? Should eyes be closed or open? What should hands be doing during sex? Is kissing allowed? It would be helpful for the church to set some extremely clear guidelines - it's very difficult for people to know for sure if they are sinning or not. Also - are couples allowed to enjoy sex, or should it feel shameful afterwards and never speak about it? I would love to see what percentage of Catholics have used/are currently using contraception. Then I imagine the Catholic church would excommunicate all of them and there would be no members left for the church.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:39 a.m.

johnnya2, where do you get your information that it was a catholic idea that the world was flat? Didn't Magellan's expedition prove the world round? And he was Catholic. And slaveholders? The pilgrims were not catholic and neither were most of the famous slaveholders in early American history. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and any other American president that owned slaves was not Catholic. By a decree issued in 1936 the importation of slaves into Saudi Arabia was prohibited unless it could be proved that they were slaves at that date. It was not until 1962 that all slavery practice or trafficking in Saudi Arabia was prohibited. So it appears that Islam has a more recent slavery experience. Please more information on slavery in the 20th century please read: The Social Structure of Islam. UK: Cambridge University Press by Reuben Levy (1957) <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:46 a.m.

If you follow the catholic cult, you obviously are using the name thinker as ironic. How is that whole earth being flat thing working out for your cult? How about that slavery thing?


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 11:49 p.m.

I find your comments terribly offensive, and not just dumb. The Church gives us the right way to follow. If the young people of the congregation choose not to follow it, they can go to confession and be forgiven, if they are truly sorry. No religion can force people to follow their dogmas. We all have the right, however, to follow our religious beliefs, not have to listen to offensive comments like yours.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:15 p.m.

My understanding is that it costs more for the insurance companies to provide a policy without contraceptive coverage than one with such coverage. Contraceptives are inexpensive compared with the costs of pregnancy combined with the complications that happen in a certain percentage of pregnancies. So really Ave Maria University should be paying extra for the no-contraceptive policies, and the employees who go to the insurance company and ask for contraceptives should be getting a rebate that they can then pocket.

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3:40 a.m.

Yes Lou, $10 to some people does make the difference between affording and not affording a birth control pill. Women in poverty are the least able to afford birth control. And women in poverty also tend to have the most high-risk sexual activity. Widely available &amp; inexpensive birth control does far more to prevent pregnancy than preaching at women about &quot;behavioral choices&quot; or teaching abstinence to horny high-schoolers, and that's been shown in study after study.

Lou Apostolakis

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:59 p.m.

Do you have any valid evidence to suggest that people get pregnant more often, all else being equal, when their insurance doesn't cover birth control? If you can't be bothered to pay $30/mo for the generic pill, you won't pay the $10 copay either. If you are that indifferent, you probably wouldn't even bother to take the pill if it magically showed up on your counter every morning.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 9:19 p.m.

I wonder what they stand and policy is on Viagra?

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3:28 a.m.

It's very simple, HaeJee. Erection drugs pills can result in more Catholic babies. Therefore they are ok. Birth control pills might result in few Catholic babies. Therefore they are bad.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:56 a.m.

@Thinker, Birth Control not only eases some of the symptoms of a woman's menstrual cycle, it also has been proven to decrease the risk for cervical and ovarian cancer, and as a whole women who take oral contraceptives are likely to live longer than women who don't.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 11:46 p.m.

As far as I know, there is no &quot;church stand&quot; on viagra. As Viagra is also now approved for benign prostatic hypertrophy, it is an accepted medical treatment.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:42 p.m.

just did ( google that is)... plenty of entries on &quot;catholic church and viagra&quot; and pretty much as one would expect. suffice it say pres santorum would likely make an exception to his &quot;anti government in health care&quot; stance for this happy ---and expensive--little pill.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:37 p.m.

an excellent question...seriously ( im gonna google it).


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 9 p.m.

I can't imagine the uproar from other religions would be if the government found some health benefit to pork products and made it mandatory in our school lunches for all our children to eat ! Boy, would people cry discrimination against beliefs different.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:30 p.m.

The use of such a terrible analogy illustrates how poorly some understand this issue.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:52 p.m.

Or requiring children to say The Pledge of allegiance?

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 6:08 a.m.

As long as we're just making things up, imagine if our government decided that everyone should live on the moon and made it illegal to live on the Earth! First it's Obama saying that insurance companies should cover a legitimate medical need, next things it's cats marrying dogs, and before you know it we're all living in Moon Colonies!


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:44 a.m.

Actually, it would be like a Muslim or Jewish family going into a school system and saying, we do not want to be FORCED to pay for pork since it is IMMORAL to eat in our world. How many so-called Xtians would accept this as reasonable. In fact, the Catholic church claims they do not believe int he death penalty. Every day they pay taxes that fund prrisons that practice this. What if another religion, say Rastafarian, says they believe they should be allowed to smoke marijuana to practice their religion? What is another religion like say Islam says that interest is immoral. If they have a debt to the IRS, should it be waived? If there were religions that said sacrificing a virgin was needed to practice their religion, should that killing be forgiven? Nobody is FORCED to take birth control in any way shape or form. We ALL pay for things we do not want to pay for. Get over it


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:37 a.m.

No one is making it mandatory for them to use the contraception. If they made pork a mandatory choice for school lunches it would be no different - no one is forcing the kids to eat it.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 8:36 p.m.

Where is the separation of Church and State? It looks like the State is going to be running the Church! 1st it's contraception coverage then what?


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 2:27 p.m.

&quot;It was also founded as a Judeo Christian beliefs.&quot; That's false. &quot;They had every intention of our government being &quot;ONE NATION UNDER GOD&quot;.&quot; Then why didn't such a slogan pop up until the mid 20th century? (Hint: they had no such intention.) Talk about a need to educate oneself on the issue. No one's religious freedom is being impinged upon, and Christians do not deserve special rights simply because they erroneously believe this country was made for them.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:51 p.m.

What's next? The banning of gay marriage because of religious beliefs? Restrictions on womens reproductive decisions? Requiring bureaucrats to show videos to Dr's patients? Nah, that would be Church running State, and we all know conservatives abhor what the Founders fought against, Church control of the State.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:10 p.m.

bob: got the 'in- joke&quot;...although the ad in question is being proposed by someone who advocates for precisely those who hold the kind of destructive views i mentioned ( well, to be fair not the volcano god one!) and was designed to defame other believers of more diverse and mostly undestructive bent. i'm sure you will agree , given your past sentiments ( yeah, right!)

Basic Bob

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:34 p.m.

&quot;Socially destructive religious practices/beliefs&quot; Just don't try to put it on the side of a bus.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:13 a.m.

Eileen, I think you need to educate yourself. Contraception lawsuit aside, there's a reason that &quot;God&quot; doesn't make an appearance anywhere in the Constitution. The phrase, &quot;one nation, under god&quot; wasn't even adopted by our country until Congress added it to the pledge in 1954 in an attempt to thwart communist ideologies. Our founding fathers intended for our country to have no government backed religious institution. And in the treaty of Tripoli (1776) Under George Washington it states, &quot;As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion&quot;. I don't think it can be any more clear. Here you have the president of the Constitutional Convention, and first president of the United States, declaring specifically we are not.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 10:36 p.m.

then what?? i 'd hope continued secular government efforts to keep socially destructive religious practices/ beliefs out of the public arena ( be they unrestrained , irresponsible breeding, to honor killing, to disbelief in hard scientific evidence , to sacrificing virgins to the volcano god, to jihad, to etc. etc.)


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 8:56 p.m.

PLEASE educate yourself on this issue! When this country was first founded, coming from a country where ALL people HAD to believe in the 'Church of England' (law), and had no other choice, our founding fathers intended this to mean that all people have the right to practice in a church of their choice!! It was also founded as a Judeo Christian beliefs. It was not for the removal of religion in government, but government to be removed from the practice of the people. Get it straight! They had every intention of our government being &quot;ONE NATION UNDER GOD&quot;.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 7:51 p.m.

Of COURSE they're suing. They sue everything that threatens a post - medieval worldview, from teaching evolution in the public schools in Dover pa ( and ave tom...whoops!! maria! ..i meant maria!...lost) to same sex benefits in ann arbor, to the right of social workers to reject gay clients at EMU ( hippocratic oath anyone??) ....and now this. ... perhaps trying to repeal the law of gravity will be next ( after all, it causes believers to fall down and hurt themselves). Also I wonder how much tom is donating to santorum.

Basic Bob

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 12:32 p.m.

I think they make a valid point - they are required by federal law to pay an insurance company for services that their employees don't use. You can bet the insurance company appreciates the difference, especially if federal law does not allow them to factor it into the premiums.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 11:43 p.m.

Excuse me, but as a physician I NEVER refused care to anyone who needed it who could not pay. I believe none of our ERs ever turn away a patient who truly is an emergency who cannot pay. Now, elective care is just that: elective and non-emergent.


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 7:59 p.m.

I agree with you bedrog, we should force people to do things that they find morally reprehesible; this is Amerika afterall..........

Kevin McNulty

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 7:38 p.m.

As a Catholic I am upset with this from the Freedom of Religion aspect, but there is another issue that seems to be less reported. Contraceptives are common and purchased by probably millions of people. They pay all or in part (co pays) of the cost. This policy makes them free for those purchasers and the result is the cost will be added to everyone in the form of higher health care premiums or prescription co pays. I find it ironic that the federal govt chose to make a prescription purchased by healthy people free for their sexcapades, while millions of seriously ill people still have to pay for their medicines. I thought he idea of the Affordable Health Care Act was to make health care more affordable for people who are ill or injured and cannot afford health insurance. Silly me. I should have known we would be increasing costs by giving healthy people free drugs. I guess we should give away Viagra for free too. I actually would have predicted that the feds would have told health care insurance companies to charge more in co pays for any prescription that is used by healthy people in an attempt to decrease costs for the sick, especially when the result of the medication, pregnancy can be avoided by behavioral change.

Kevin McNulty

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 4:25 p.m.

Mr. Ivorson, I think I have it forwards. I figured someone would try to argue this but did not address since it makes no sense. I read the article that you posted and it reports: &quot;The estimates of the public savings that would result if these unintended pregnancies were prevented range from $4.7 billion to $6.2 billion per year, and average $5.6 billion.&quot; This assumes that all pregnancies would be prevented. One of my points is that this savings may not equal the overall cost of providing birth control free to anyone who wants it. I do not know how much money is paid by prescription holders who have to pay in full or in part (co-pay) but I would not be surprised it is well more than $5 billion estimate. I find it bizarre that people who can afford contraceptives can now get them for free and this is a drug used by healthy people. Our govt has a habit of solving social issues by making business solve the problem and that is passed onto the public in costs to all consumers while putting no responsibility on individual behavior. With health care insurance companies are ordered to cover everyone but there is no mandate on the individual to get healthy. The US has a critical issue with obesity. Smoking and alcoholism is unhealthy yet go ahead and smoke, everyone will pay your way. With auto emissions we mandate manufacturers to come up with more fuel efficient vehicles which drives costs significantly. Why isn't the speed limit lowered?


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 1:18 p.m.

You don't want to use contraceptives, then don't use them. But keep out of my life &amp; others who believe that contraception IS a moral imperative in this world of overpopulation &amp; it's resulting myriad of ills. The Catholic Church is still living in medieval times as are some of its believers.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3:43 a.m.

Did somebody turn the clock back to 1950? If the reactionary Republicans want to argue that contraceptives is a Democratic thing, I'm all for that conversation. Can you say Dems winning by a landslide.


Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3:38 a.m.

Contraceptives drive down the cost of health care, because pregnancy and medical care for a child are about 10,000 times as expensive as contraceptives. So in reality, so you're not paying for anything you object to, because your costs have been reduced. As for &quot;pregnancy can be avoided by behavioral change.&quot; Get real. Reproduction is a biological imperative. It's hard-wired into our system. You might as well tell people not to eat. Yeah, some people may be so guilt-ridden and filled with shame that they find some kind of virtue in avoiding nonreproductive sex in an adult romantic relationship, but then, some people think they need to starve themselves into skeletons as well. One is just as messed up as the other.

Jake C

Wed, Feb 22, 2012 : 3:24 a.m.

Contraceptive pills are only good for &quot;sexcapades&quot;, that's an amazing point. I hope Santorum starts using that in his next Michigan campaign ad.

Ivor Ivorsen

Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 8 p.m.

Mr. McNulty, The cost argument is valid, unfortunately you've got it backwards. The cost &quot;added to everyone&quot; will be the $11 billion--most of it taxpayer money-- associated with the 1 million or so unwanted pregnancies each year in the United States (see link below). Comparatively, the cost of free access to birth control is negligible. <a href="" rel='nofollow'></a>


Tue, Feb 21, 2012 : 7:57 p.m.

This is part of bending the cost curve down. Don't you get it?????????? Me neither plus the fact that they could care less what your religious beliefs are; they are the government and are only here to help us..........