Wausau Daily HeraldAnti-abortion advocates are criticizing the mandate, saying birth control is not preventive care but a lifestyle choice.
Virginia Zignego, spokeswoman for Pro-Life Wisconsin, said her organization expects the change to lead to even more dramatic shifts in what must be covered.
Along with eliminating financial barriers, Bublik-Anderson said making birth control more accessible than it is today could benefit women's general health. For instance, spacing births apart results in less financial strain on parents and lowers risks during pregnancy, according to Bublik-Anderson and national research.
Zignego, though, said a main concern for Pro-Life is that businesses that don't want to provide the coverage for personal or religious reasons will be forced to do so if they are going to have health insurance for workers.
The rule does include a provision that would allow religious institutions not to offer birth control coverage.
Phil Dougherty, senior executive officer for the Wisconsin Association of Health Plans, said mandating complete coverage of birth control is expected to increase insurance premiums, because any increase in coverage typically drives up costs.
Newman argued any shift in premium costs will likely be minor compared to the financial ramifications businesses face when workers are gone for an extended period of time because of unplanned pregnancies.
Empowering women by making sure their employers can mandate they not have more children. That's the implication right? The employer is fine with paying for the coverage as long as his female employees don't have too many children, right?
You know if that child has any abnormalities like autism, maybe we could just pay for an abortion instead because that's cheaper than child care. Or maybe employers could just mandate that both male and female employees be sterilized before hiring them. That would really solve this problem.