Well, they can cover contraceptives or pay more for insurance for their pregnant employees, the birth of children and then the medical care for those children.

If employers are mandated to provide specific coverages, it costs something, which in turn causes employers to have to either pay employees a lower salary, or provide fewer jobs to start with. For years, "good causes" have tried to force mandated coverages for smoking cessation, HIV infection, mental health, and on and on and on. Even allowing adult children to be on parents' insurance is a major expense which has to be passed on to other health insurance consumers. People must be in LaLa Land to think any of that is "free."

It's not about contraception it is about the government taking away the freedom of choice and forcing people to do something against their will. In this case a religious organization to buy something they don't choose to spent their money on.

Most opinions here are good and solid. My problem with the view of the liberal side is that they accuse our "freedom of choice" as a choice of judgement, yet their choice is as judgemental as our is. To disregard a judgement with a judgement makes no sense to me. <><

The question presupposes a right by someone to regulate employers' choices. NO ONE, whether a person or gov't entity should have the power to regulate an employer's choice with regard to what it pays to its employees or the benefits it affords them. How would the newspaper folks feel if the question was, "Should journalists be allowed to write articles critical of the gov't?". Allowed by who???? Think people, think!!

Yes. This is a freedom of conscience issue. If contraception is morally offensive to an employer they should not be forced to provide it.

The world is facing a population crisis. We don't have enough resources to go around. We need contraception, not some archaic mandate from the Catholic Church.

Does Baylor insurance pay for birth control? (One point: paying for routine health care acts as a preventative measure regarding more serious and expensive medical conditions. I mean, should monthly prescriptions for high blood pressure, heart conditions, etc. not be paid for since they are "maintenance" drugs?)

An employer's health care benefits should be whatever the employer feels is appropriate and competitive. However, health insurance should be for unexpected and/or catastrophic events, NOT routine medical care. Your car insurance doesn't cover tires or oil changes, etc. Your homeowner's insurance doesn't cover painting or repairing/replacing the roof, etc. Why should health insurance cover what we should be capable of doing to maintain our own bodies?

No medical care is a right, it's all a privilege.

Yes. Contraception is a privilege, not a right. As previously posted, if you require this option work for someone who includes this.

Yes, I think that they should be allowed to exclude contraception from their coverage. While I hope that employers will include many things in their coverage, I don't think they should be forced to cover something which they are philosophically opposed to, unless the coverage is for an occupational hazard of working at the company. And unless you work in a Nevada brothel or the porn industry, getting pregnant is not an "occupational hazard."

I feel an employer can do anything he dang well pleases. No one has you chained to work there. If you don't like his benefits or perks - looks somewhere else. This is still a free world (at least for the present time).

It depends. Do they accept federal funding to operate? Then, yes. otherwise no.