More on HHS and Contraceptives.

I am back.  The convention went fairly good.  I do wish I had been able to garden this weekend, or get some semblance of housework done.  Guess what I'm doing this whole week!

Just in case:
The following post is based upon arguments I have read and heard.  It is not, in any way, intended to refer to every single person and their views about the issue.

Further regarding HHS:
I read two articles in last Sunday's Perspective section in the Post about it.  Both opposing the religious side in favor of "women's health."  One was written by a woman and one was written by a man.  Both brought up valid points in favor of birth control, the latter bringing up the point that the government indeed forces others to pay for things they are opposed to.  The author cited four to six things (I can't remember now) that peoples of other faiths pay for via taxes that they oppose.
The religious argument is not a new one.
I suppose the question now is what makes the Christian/Catholic argument any better than the others?
Upon thinking on the things the author cited (vegans paying for subsidized grazing land for livestock we eat) I've realized that the difference is that birth control is not something that is needed by the majority.  It is not a necessity that people be able to have sex without facing the consequences of a child.  There is a percentage of women (I think the first article mentioned said something around 14%) that need birth control as hormone therapy for treating certain disorders (PCOS) however, these women are most likely not going to die without it.
In a further discussion with my roommate she argued that freedom of religion is acceptable until your religion is hurting someone else.  The example she gave was as such: what if she worked for a Christian Science company and for some reason went to the hospital with life-threatening injuries.  At the hospital she dies on the operating table and needs to be resuscitated.  Now, because Christian Scientists do not believe in medical care they refuse to pay the particular part of the medical bill (after insurance) that is regarding the resuscitation and she is left with the resulting enormous bill.
That's valid, but I don't think a Christian Science company would even offer health insurance to begin with.
I can say, that having been in a situation where I was uninsured and "needed" birth control, it is not difficult to get.  All I did was go to a Planned Parenthood, told them I needed a prescription for this pill, and they gave it to me.  The cost was double what I was paying with insurance but even then it amounted to an extra $10 a month.  I understand that this is hard to come by sometimes, but it's not like I had a high paying job.  I was pretty much below the poverty line according to my income totals at the end of that year, but I made due.  It's all about budgeting, which is a skill Americans seem to notoriously lack.  In any case, I haven't found an insurance provider that covers contraceptives fully (albeit I haven't been really looking for one either).
So my point is that those who argue that it's OK to force someone to pay for something they morally oppose argue that those who are morally opposed are in some way physically harming someone else.  At least that's the way it seems on the HHS issue.
The issue is silly because it isn't like birth control is hard to get.  If someone opposes it and therefore will not pay for it, pay for it yourself.  You're already working, so use $20 of that money every month to buy a pack of pills.

The whole thing frustrates me.  I have a problem with people who expect others to just pony up for their stuff.  The group of people who are entitled to everything regardless.  The same people who will buy a shiny new car when they know damn well they can't afford it and then are surprised (sometimes even enraged) when it gets taken from them because they can't pay.
Yes, there are people who legitimately need the help, and help should come to them in some form or another.
But there are also those people who are perfectly capable of supporting themselves if only they didn't live outside of their means.  I feel like these are the people that make up the majority in this case.

But it could be that I'm just being a cynic.