The issue is not whether people accept contraception and believe it should be legal and available. it's whether insurance companies should be forced to pay for it. The more things you require insurance companies to do the more the insurance will cost. The polls simply show that two thirds of Americans believe in a free lunch. That explains why they vote for the politicians they do. Suppose we treated home owners insurance the same way we do health insurance. It sure would be nice if the insurance company would pay for the new floor I just put in the kitchen, the painting of the living room I have to do next, etc. Why stop there -- home insurance should have to pay for my gas, electric, and phone service. Of course if home insurance was required to pay for all those things it would just cost a lot more.
I was beginning to think I was the only one to recognize this. Don't forget forcing coverage of pre-existing conditions. Although I'll admit the idea is attractive, in that I can forgo home owners and car insurance premiums until AFTER a house fire or wreck. THEN I'll take out a policy and force all those other suckers who have been paying premiums to fix my house and car.
Take it one step further, to the point of having so many babies without viable parent or medical treatment. This leaves both mother and child to be supported by the government. I am 'ANTI-ABORTION' especially when used for birth control. Contraception is a better alternative, IMO. Too many poor and un-cared for children n the U.S. already. c