I think birth control should be covered under insurance along with every other prescription. Who is to decide which is worth covering and which isn't -- that's not right.

If I take birth control maybe due to dysmenorrhea; to help relieve the symptoms rather than purely for not getting pregnant there's no reason it shouldn't be covered.

If someone takes xanax because they're anxious well their pills are covered. Say it's a woman she doesn't WANT men to foot her bill she just wants to afford to feel relief.

If an obese person takes a pill to lower their cholesterol well it's their fault they put themselves into that situation but their pill is covered under insurance and they WANT to be relieved of pain/symptoms/problems.

This is not a male vs. female question, the question is whether BC should be covered under insurance and it should ALL prescriptions should be.

I believe in natural remedies over prescriptions any day but BC should seriously be covered. And women who uses BC and has unprotected sex.. well you're an idiot because that's not the best idea of BIRTH CONTROL anyhow.

Insurance should be covered by health insurance. The goal of companies providing insurance should be focused on cost. In this scenario birth control is by far the low cost option. A company saves thousands of dollars by providing birth control vs. unwanted pregnancies. Companies are not responsible to make moral judgments for its employees.

Yes, Birth Control should definatly be covered under health insurance. Birth control costs much less than a pregnancy and also cost less than an abortion. It is also used for other medical reasons, such as ovarian problems.

I think that birth control definitely should be covered under insurance because in some ways it is a health need. For people that say it is not, the health risks tied to pregnancy are so much greater than the health risks of taking birth control.

Most definitely. This is a woman's health that is at jeopardy, as well as a man's. Without birth control of any form, diseases are spread and unwanted pregnancies are conceived, both of which can be very dangerous if they are not cared for.

The idea that covering birth control will unfairly force men to subsidize a woman's desire to have sex without consequence is ridiculous. First, as it takes both men and women to make babies, it is reasonable to think that both men and women should be responsible for preventing them. Second, women have to subsidize a man's desire to have sex long past the biological age of ability--Viagra is covered under most plans. Third, many women take birth control to reduce the painful and difficult symptoms of menstruation, a condition that has NOTHING to do with preventing pregnancy. To suggest that women wish to have birth control pills covered just because they want to have sex is patriarchal, misogynistic, and, well, just stupid.

Besides, it seems economically sensible for insurance carriers to cover birth control. Which is cheaper--the cost of a monthly prescription or the cost of covering a nine month pregnancy?