I'm...confused. Is his plan really bad it are my fellow Democrats being ironic in regards to Gardner because of his past (and probably true) position on personhood and abortion?
[OOC]Both. This really is an intentional attempt by Republican to undercut Obamacare's coverage of contraceptives. If that wasn't their goal, they could have included a line in the bill that insurance companies must cover OOC birth control pills identically to how they would cover prescription contraception. (That would still be a bad bill because women, especially teenage girls, shouldn't be taking birth control pills without discussing all the pros and cons with a doctor first.)
Also, Gardner sucks (for his support of "Personhood," at least until it became politically inconvenient, and for other reasons as well), so his lampooning deserves to be mocked.[/OOC]
If your doctor gives you a prescription for something also available over the counter, and the law already says that the prescription for this medication must be covered without co-pay...? Maybe this is an attempt to undercut the coverage mandate, but if it is, it is extremely ineffectual.
Under Obamacare, insurance companies can choose not to cover OTC medications (which most insurance companies do anyways). So any birth control available OTC could technically not be covered.
Also, I must add that this is a little dangerous. I don't think 18 year old smokers should be able to stroll down the aisle and pick up oral contraceptives without a doctor or pharmacist telling them to not smoke while taking the birth control.
