You are really comparing free birth control with legitimate government functions like police and schools?
Why stop at the government mandating $10 birth control pills every month? Why not mandatory toilet paper or deodorant or cereal?
Even by the standards of liberals this is inane.
So first you try and sever the connection between birth control and "legitimate government functions" like police and schools, and then you try and equate birth control with deodorant and cereal?
First of all, get off the "standards of liberals" nonsense. Republicans,
including Huckabee himself, who, in 2005, signed a law mandating Arkansas insurance plans provide contraception coverage,
including church-affiliated organizations, were more than happy to embrace the idea that government should provide contraception to women all through the Clinton and Bush administrations. As the
LA Times notes, "Twenty-two states have laws or regulations that resemble, at least in part, the Obama administration's original rule. More than a third had some Republican support." Even President Bush himself never challenged the idea when he encountered the potential federal mandate. They're just opposing it now to try and stake out a contrarian niche for themselves, and because when people like Huckabee hit the national spotlight, all their moderation and temperance is replaced with fanatical rhetoric designed to make them stand out and contrast with their opponents.
Now that your feeble straw man has been dealt with, let's get to the point. Abstract notions of the "legitimate functions of government" are utterly meaningless here. Access to birth control prevents unwanted pregnancies, which prevents children having to lead miserable and disadvantaged lives, and also saves massive amounts of taxpayer money.
About 50% of all US pregnancies are unintended, so all that bullshyt about infantilizing or patronizing rhetoric is simply misguided- clearly, a massive number of Americans are conceiving without wanting to, regardless of how responsible or mature or independent they might be otherwise, and no amount of pretending that things are fine as they are with no changes can erase that glaring fact. Even people who have access to contraceptives don't always have the incentives to acquire or use them. And of course, we already know that any amount of abstinence-only campaigns won't solve the problem, since it's already been proven that they're ridiculously ineffective at stopping people from having sex. Covering it would go some distance towards solving this problem and save money in the process, and help foster a culture of contraceptive responsibility. Taking this line of argument, this is a relatively simple cost-benefit analysis.
Tell me, does not having access to deodorant cause such disastrous consequences? As for cereal- food stamps exist, if you weren't aware, and actually serve the function you're aiming at with the cereal example.
Second, I'm fine with universal healthcare, and so I find this a civilized option under those terms, too.
