The problem with the cat analogy is that no one believes access to cats is a human right.

@LShaver - it's not a problem because conservatives don't consider access to free (aka paid for with someone else's money) contraceptives to be a human right either. If someone wants contraceptives they can buy them. Note that there are precisely ZERO laws, or even proposals, banning the sale of contraceptives.

Right, and that's the crux of the argument. What's the difference between denying someone a thing, and denying them the means to acquire a thing? Eliminating insurance coverage of contraceptives, for some individuals, is the same as denying them access to it.

@AaronF - not paying for things that are a big religious issue with tax money generally goes into "freedom of religion" bucket of philosophical ideas. Doesn't matter how much money it costs - it's the principle of the thing.

@LShaver - first of all, no. Nobody is denying me access to truffles, just becauase they refuse to pay for my truffles. Again, you are premising here that being given "free" contraceptives is a human right. Whereas it's instead an optional luxury. It may be a good idea, it may be a popular idea (96% of Americans don't mind contraceptives), but it's still a luxury and not a human right in the view of peope on the right side of the spectrum.

This argument makes sense on the surface: sure, why should someone's insurance premiums have to pay for contraception. But the nature of insurance is that we pay for coverage for things we might not want to pay for – so why is "forcing" someone to pay for contraception coverage a problem but not "forcing" them to pay for viagra coverage, or treatment for pack-a-day smokers, or really any kind of coverage? And the answer is that there are conservatives who are against contraception – that's the fact that makes this an issue

@divibisan - because viagra is a medical treatment for a medical problem, whereas contraceptives are not. And as far as I know nobody's insurance pays for cigarettes - and I don't think there's a way to refuse treatment for cancer "because someone is a smoker" in a way that would survive a court challenge. Having said that, I would 100% support you if you propose charging higher taxes or higher insurance premiums on people with clearly unhealthy lifestyle.

@user4012 again, the truffle analogy breaks down because no one believes that's a human right. My point is not to argue whether contraception is a right or not (though I believe it is), just to point out that this question -- whether or not it is a right -- is what's really at issue in the debate. When we agree that something is a human right (like access to water) there's no argument about whether/how it's paid for. The discussion about who's paying distracts from the argument about whether or not it's a right to which individuals should be guaranteed access.

@LShaver - the question wasn't whether contraception is a human right. It was why conservatives are "agains" contraception (which the main point is, they ARE NOT). And the question becomes "why are they against paying for it", and the answer is in large part "because they don't consider it a human right" (any more than you believe that about truffles). And if you actually want to ask a GOOD political question (as opposed to popular one among left wing thoughtless upvoters), someone would ask why conservatives in general are more concerned with negative vs. positive rights.

Your statement ("they don't consider it a human right") should be in your answer, which, for the record, I believe starts off strong. You are right that this question ("why don't conservatives consider it a human right?") should be another question... but your answer should say so! You talk about noisy issues, and the "who's paying?" question is part of what makes this one noisy.

@user4012 See: this is the argument right here! Some conservatives argue that contraception is purely a luxury good, not basic preventative medical care, while others (for example the religious groups that sued here) go further and argue that contraception is sinful, and therefore having to cover is an attack on them.

@divibisan - "sinful" is why they personally don't want to cover them (and are not "conservative" and constitute a super small minority even among Republicans/conservatives - see the poll). "luxury" is why conservatives at large support this small minority NOT being forced into it regardless of how they feel about contraception (positive or negative - and again looking at the poll, most aren't negative).

I think this is a good answer to the question asked. That said, I don't think the truffle analogy works. It may be a human right to have access to food, but not necessarily to any specific food. The analogy to contraception would be that it's a right to have access to some form of it, but not to any specific form. A one-visit long-term form like an IUD might be reasonable to cover as part of that "basic access" whereas an ongoing daily prescription pill might not be. I don't know how I feel about that argument, but I think it's closer to an accurate analogy.

@LShaver - good point, added the positive vs. negative rights angle to the asnwer.

@user4012 Definitely a stronger answer after adding that. It still bothers me that you claim there is no argument and then present an argument. You’re leaning too pedantically on the idea that only a moral argument can count as an argument.

@divibisan - "conservatives" don't have an argument, because they are not arguing against contraception. At all. If you want to edit the question to ask "Why are 4% of Republicans against contraception", we'd have a different discussion.

@DVK-on-Ahch-To Contraceptives certainly are a medical treatment for a medical problem. Not all of the time, but a number of medical conditions are treated via hormonal contraceptives, eg endometriosis

Moreover, the point you raise in the answer that medical insurance is not catastrophe insurance is true, BUT remember that preventative measures are more efficient and cost effective, so it is in the best interest of the insurer and society to do preventative care

@perpetuallyconfused - I'm not disagreeing with that as a medical fact, but this is politics, so what matters is that people percieve them as optional "for fun" part of medicine. A vast majority of policies and views on a bipartisan basis contradict reality, or at least nuances - why should this one be any different?

@perpetuallyconfused Re: insurance - again, I'm fully in agreement. It's a good idea to have preventative measures included. Hell it may likely be even good from actuarial point of view for insurer, never mind the society. Which has absolutely NOTHING with the answer, the point of which is that while saying "all insurance should cover broken limbs" may be 100% uncontrovercial universally, saying "all insurance should cover contraception" is less universally accepted, regardless of factual merits.