Some idiot wrote:

"It's absurd that a small business should pay for women to have unprotected sex. That is not a medical problem. If women want to have unprotected sex they or their partner can purchase the birth control."

Um, isn't using birth control the EXACT OPPOSITE OF HAVING UNPROTECTED SEX?????

Actually including birth control coverage in an insurance plan is a cost saving at less than $2 per month, instead of covering multiple pregnancies and maternity/paternity leave for their employees. Condoms are typically covered under health flexible spending accounts, but not under the regular health care/prescription plans...but that might be because they aren't a prescription medicine. Comprehensive health care for women includes reproductive health. Many women need rely on hormonal birth control for many reasons other than contraception. Multiple, unplanned pregnancies can cause many health problems for both mother and child. Providing contraceptive coverage is really a no-brainer for those with brains. And I'm sure someone will mention that they don't want to pay for someone else's "lifestyle" choices, but in every group insurance plan you pay for coverage that you might never use. Should plans stop covering diabetes treatment since it can be brought on by poor diet? How about skin cancer treatment? Let's not cover that since it was their "lifestyle" choice not to use sunscreen!

Most school systems barely have enough resources as it is. Where are they going to come up with double the classroom space and double the teachers? Or maybe they can work this plan: girls go to school in the morning and boys go in the afternoon. Cheapest way to reduce class room size! Brillant!

Mr. Neal says

"If you don't want to have children then wear use a contraceptive that works for you!"

Well, maybe EC is the form of birth control works best for someone that is infrequently sexually active. Using hormonal birth control or having an IUD can have some pretty severe side effects.

Looking at the numbers (from Planned Parenthood's site) EC does seem as effective (when taken within the 72 hour window) as condoms.

EC efficacy: "can reduce the risk of pregnancy up to 120 hours after unprotected vaginal intercourse. The sooner they're taken, the better. They work best when taken within 72 hours — during this time they can reduce the risk of pregnancy from 75 to 89%. For example, eight out of 100 women will become pregnant after having unprotected intercourse once during the second or third week of their cycles. But only one to two women out of 100 will become pregnant after taking EC pills."

Condom efficacy: "Of 100 women whose partners use condoms, about 15 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Only two women will become pregnant with perfect use.

Comparing the numbers, EC looks to be more effective than the sponge and diaphragm.

I wouldn't recommend EC pills as a primary form of birth control because of the side effects and because it gives no protection against STDs.

Mr. Neal, you go on to say that you don't want to judge anyone's sex life, but you say "So don't tell me that the reason we need to just indiscriminately hand out refills to every woman that walks in the door is because their primary contraceptive, SUCH AS A CONDOM may fail. I ain't fallin for that excuse." If you aren't judging anyone's sex life, why DOES IT MATTER WHY THEY NEED EC???? Is it semantics? Should we just call EC, birth control and be done with it? Fine, I'm all for that. So if EC is valid as a form of birth control, why is it then irresponsible to go out and get refills for it? We indiscriminately hand out condoms all over the place, but don't call the people that use them irresponsible. Or is it just a timing issue...if you use a method before or during sex, it's not irresponsible, but if you take those EC pills you got this morning, you are irresponsible? That doesn't make any sense. What if I got the pills a week prior to having sex and then took them right after...would that make me more responsible? I think that just makes the case for making refills available stronger.

So why are you irresponsible if you use EC as your main form of BC? The only reasonable answer is efficacy. If EC effectiveness was the same or better than other forms of BC, then the choice to use EC as BC is no different than using any of form of BC. (My personal experience is the EC's side effects were too extreme to use it as a primary form of BC, but that may not be true for others.) So why the big deal about the refills? Is it because these pharmacists are worried that their customers aren't being prescribed a more effective form of birth control? I hardly think so.