Colleges Soon Required to Give Students Access to Free Sluttery-Causing Birth Control

Illustration for article titled Colleges Soon Required to Give Students Access to Free Sluttery-Causing Birth Control

On Friday, the Obama administration released a 32-page document clarifying some rules about the Affordable Care Act's Preventative Care Mandate. Namely, since birth control is preventative care and since preventative care is required to be fully covered by employer-sponsored insurance, colleges and universities will also have to offer plans that give their students access to free birth control. Even religious schools. The girls are about to go so much more wild than you could possibly imagine.


Anticipating The Holy Stink Eye from The Holy See and others who think that it's an affront to their personal freedom when women associated with them are involved in crazy Magdalene-esque things like recreational sex or non-pregnancy, the President also offered a compromise that would remove conscientious oppressors from funding women's harlotry. Religious universities that object to paying for contraception would pass the cost onto the insurance company, just like religious employers.

Despite the administration's attempts to compromise, religious institutions have sued in recent months, claiming the contraception mandate requires them to finance things that they find morally objectionable. Religious institutions say that it's hypocritical for them to tell their students that birth control and premarital sex are morally objectionable and then offer no-cost birth control to their students. (Apt points, both, coming from a group that enjoys tax-exempt status while paying untold millions to the families of child victims that suffered sexual abuse at the hands of its employees.)

Complaining institutions are crying religious freedom, but what they really seen to want is for birth control to be as difficult and expensive to obtain as possible.

Religious academic institutions don't have to pay for the cost of contraceptive coverage — the administration says insurers must do that. So, to appeal to the year's most hilarious analogy, if contraception is like a ham sandwich and churches that object to contraceptives are like some Jewish people who object to ham, in this scenario, it's okay for nonbelieving students at the religious school to eat all the ham sandwiches they want, and they'll be financed by The Ham Sandwich Fund, which is not administered by the school. In fact, the ham sandwiches will likely be consumed in secret, and so no one will know who has chosen to eat ham sandwiches, because it's really not the University's business to know what students are eating. In fact, the university shouldn't blame the government for its students choosing ham sandwiches; rather, it should blame itself for having weak anti-ham sandwich arguments that fail to convince people to agree with them in the first place.

At the very least, the new law will save some girls in South Bend, Indiana a cab ride to the Planned Parenthood behind the car dealership just off Grape Road in Mishawaka.

New Rules for Health Plans [Inside Higher Ed]



I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but its true. If you voluntarily choose to attend a RELIGIOUS COLLEGE, you should agree to follow their rules. There are MANY (most!) other schools available if you don't like/disagree with their rules. Going to a religious college is a CHOICE, it is not mandatory. Their rules are part of the package, catholic views on birth control are not exactly a secret. The pro-choicers trying to impose their morals on religious schools are no different than pro-lifers trying to impose their morals on women—in both cases you have one group attempting to FORCE others to comply with their morals.

Note that personally I am in favor of birth control/sex education for everyone/free condoms and the like, but I RESPECT that other people are entitled to their own views. It seems a lot of people on here have no respect for others unless their views are identical to their own.

Flame away