Instead of forcing everyone to go read the initial post for anything that I forgot to put in there, I’ll just post a bunch of follow ups.
The whole religious freedoms vs. reproductive rights isn’t really a thing like everyone thinks it is.
This seems to be a pretty big rallying cry for a lot of people, but it’s really just that, a rallying cry. There are plenty of protections for, say, procreation. See, for example, forced sterilizations/eugenics. However, this decision is not a reproductive rights issue, it’s a “who pays for prescription drugs” issue. No one is “telling women when they can and cannot get pregnant.” It’s simply a matter of who pays for what.
When you view it in the correct light, it’s really not that offensive. I mean, after all, there has never been a Constitutional right to have someone pay for your medical care. There is, however, a Constitutional right relating to religious freedoms. In fact, that’s one of the most important Constitutional rights that forms the foundation of our government. Having someone else pay for your birth control? That’s a privilege.
Comparisons to vasectomies are idiotic.
The issue here is related to a religious view of abortion. Considering vasectomies don’t cause abortions in the view of the plaintiffs, of course vasectomies wouldn’t be at issue. The fact that fertilization happens to occur in the woman doesn’t suddenly make this about something it’s not. Sure, in theory, getting these FOUR birth control methods restricted (out of twenty available) could be a veiled attempt to control women’s bodies, there’s no support for that over the stated reasons. By suggesting otherwise, you’re effectively saying that everyone that is espousing a religious viewpoint in this case is lying. Given that there’s no reason to believe that, that’s a pretty shitty position to take.