Tries to "guarantee it won't be used"? How do you get there from, "won't be paid for, in the desired form, at the desired price, simply for the convenience of the insured"?
I was only referring to the Catholic Church argument that they don't want their money going toward contraception for moral reasons. Given that their employees do, or at least should, subscribe to that idea I can't imagine an actuary giving them a lower rate for their choice.
Are you suggesting that competent, autonomous women (and men) are so lacking in self-control and self-motivation that, if they desire not to get pregnant (or get others pregnant, which they would be legally financially liable for), they won't prioritize their personal expenditures to "try to guarantee" that for themselves?
No, though I would contend that's true. I wasn't a planned child. Hell, my own first born wasn't planned but I will grant that I knew it was going to happen. I got lucky and the day I came home to tell my wife I wanted a kid she told me she was pregnant.
My only point was that for insurance purposes it's cheaper to cover contraceptives than it is to cover a birth. A class act IUD that works for 5 years only costs $1k (which sucks if you only use it for a year, but we did it, and will again) but the birth of a child is WAY over that, even if you go the "cheap" ($7k) nurse-practitioner midwife route that my wife and I did.
We have a new rule: Everybody* gets health insurance. I don't agree with it but that's what it is and under those rules I feel that offering contraceptives makes financial sense.
*: Not me. My company isn't big enough yet but I have my own high deductible policy which does EXACTLY what conservatives argue against and it doesn't cost all that much.
