Mourdock Argues Insurance Companies Shouldn’t Cover Birth Control at All

October 25th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

ED:

Here you are again. Well, I don’t know if WalMart sells birth control pills for $9 a month, but try to think a little beyond that, huh?

When a woman gets pregnant, then she’s supposed to have lots of care during her pregnancy. MORE medical expenses, right?

And if she delivers in a hospital, whoa, there goes MORE high costs, and if it’s a problem delivery, either the mother or the child may be in danger, and even if they’re not, you still have MORE medical expenses.

So what have you saved from denying the woman the birth-control pills, either free or low-cost?

Do you work for the medical-industrial complex, by any chance?

Not providing the birth-control pills only leads to more medical expense, so why would you oppose it? (Think maybe that women should be “barefoot and pregnant” or what?)

I don’t think there’s any proof that using birth-control pills leads to promiscuity. However, even if it were true, does it somehow help the economy or lower health care costs by having MORE unwanted pregnancies?

Or would you prefer to encourage the need for more abortions?

Source Article from http://www.nationofchange.org/mourdock-argues-insurance-companies-shouldn-t-cover-birth-control-all-1351092919