Only in the USA.
The proposal (via avflox) seems to be that religious institution's health insurance should cover birth control .... something that would probably vex those institution's whose religion is dead set against that very thing.
The argument opposing seems to be that getting women easier access to contraception will make them want to have more sex and more often. (And supports those who already behave like this.)
Now I am somewhat biased here, I quite like the idea of more women wanting to have more sex since this can only impact positively on my life, but I'm pretty sure that this is not a very negative argument in _anyone's_ books. Not exactly demotivational is it?
Add to this that a very rational and well researched suggestion that maybe those contraceptive drugs which are needed as part of required medical treatment for debilitating or life-threatening conditions could reasonably be covered by insurance without contravening religious reservations about women's sexuality got dismissed due to the suspicion that the woman delivering the suggestion enjoys having lots of sex (look up the meaning of "slut" sometime).
I'll just repeat that in case you didn't get it. The position is this: a woman can only have a valid point if she does not enjoy sex. Her intellectual validity is inversely proportional to her sexual proclivity.
Now it seems to me that, by that standard, _nobodies_ opinion has any value. How the panel can have any credibility at all after this is beyond me. Do we really want policy decisions about reproductive medicine be made by people who do not enjoy sex? Perhaps the panel would be more open to the same facts delivered by a nun? (Actually, that's probably worth arranging.) Though one suspects they'd be more receptive to a priest.
Indeed, one suspects that the panel members are not getting any and, therefore, don't see why anyone else should either. Left alone, this looks like an opportunity for drug companies to repackage popular brands of "birth control pills" as "cancer pills" and charge more.
The anger directed at the panel is also puzzling: how can their position produce any other than incredulous guffaws? The pro-coverage people have been supplied with an new, unofficial, slogan: "support coverage, get laid". It's got to be good for you.