Unless you have been living under a rock, you have heard that the Supreme Court ruled that closely held companies do not have to provide insurance coverage for things, such as certain contraceptives, that they have a religious objection to.
While I am pleased with the decision, I think it is a slippery slope, the top of which is much further up the hill than this ruling.
When did recreational sex, and the prevention of pregnancy, become federal matters?
Some insurance committee, a few decades ago, sat in a room with their actuaries, and saw that insuring the cost of oral contraceptives was more economical than insuring the cost of pregnancy, labor and delivery, and another life. I assure you that it was a financial decision - not a moral one, not a benevolent one, and certainly not due to any desire to enhance the non-pro-creational sex lives of Americans.
Whether you wish to make a scientific argument or a Biblical one, both are in agreement in this case - the heterosexual sex act is intended for procreation. And that is it. All other sex is for fun. It doesn't cure any illness or disease. It does not provide nutrients or any other life sustaining requirement.
I can't begin to justify how our society, or at least a large portion of it, came to believe that it is anyone else's responsibility to fund their ability to have recreational sex, or to prevent or dispose of the product of that act.
And, you know, I may be a fairly modern, middle of the road kind of conservative woman - but it makes me uncomfortable and sad that our society has no problem with hours of television coverage and discussion about sex, contraception and abortion. Those used to be subjects that weren't considered acceptable for general conversation. And I liked it that way.