This is the best explanation I've seen of the contraception issue: since when does failing to provide something for free equal an abrogation of rights? Hit & Run: "Does reproductive freedom imply a right to free birth control?"
Supporters of Obama's birth control rule conflate liberty with subsidies, insisting that you are not really free to do something (in this case, use contraceptives) unless it's free. According to this logic, observant Jews do not have religious freedom unless the government pays for their kosher food, bloggers do not have freedom of speech unless taxpayers buy them computers, and Americans in general do not have a right to keep and bear arms if they have to pay for guns with their own money. By contrast, the religious institutions that object to the contraceptive mandate are not asking for subsidies; they are resisting them. They object to a regulation that forces them to pay for products and services they consider immoral. They want the freedom to offer their employees health plans that do not cover contraception and sterilization.On a related note, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was questioned at a Congressional hearing about who was eventually going to pay for all this new contraceptive care. She replied: Dude, it's totally free because "The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception."
But if we're trying to avoid pregnancies, why is the government paying for boner drugs? CBS News: "Medicare benefit to cover Viagra."
Ah, government...is there anything it can't do?