But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
____________________
Comes out to less than $325 over the course of three years.

We also ought to factor in the toll that birth control pills take on a woman's health. Those high doses of hormones have been shown to increase the risk of certain kinds of cancer.

I know nobody's commented on this in a week and you're about to retire it, but I thought of something no one else seems to have. Mr. Bannister's calculations are WRONG! Ms. Fluke testified about CO-EDs' contraception: birth control pills. Mr. B. is talking about condoms: male birth control. Some men use it, some don't. And, some won't! Condoms may only cost a dollar per, but birth contol pills are expensive. I can easily believe Ms. Fluke's statement that b.c. pills could cost a woman $3,000 during a 3 year period.

While the situation is ripe for ridicule, I think we're better off with a reasoned, head-on argument. My understanding is that oral contraceptives can cost up to $50/month, though generics are available at a small fraction of that. And I'm sure that many sexually active women find the pill a better choice--are you really sure you trust your partner? He's not (if you're not married to him) going to have to deal with the consequences of failure--indeed, if he wants to go to bed with you without marrying you, he's already proven that he doesn't want to be responsible.

But $50/month is still just $1800 for a 3-year law school degree. I don't know where the other $1200 is going. And there are other, less-expensive options. That's one of the non-religious problems with this mandate--it removes any incentive for people to be price-conscious. It's one more way in which Obamacare will make the problem of increasing healthcare expenses worse, not better.

For someone who decides that's the right method of contraception, and your health plan doesn't cover it, plan your budget accordingly. (Or choose a different employer or college or insurance company that does; make that part of your decision-making process.) We all have to make choices; "free" care promotes the illusion that no choice is required. And it's bankrupting our country.

I'm presuming condoms won't be covered. Will anyone pay attention to how funding the pill (which offers no protection against disease) over condoms (which offer some protection) affects STD rates?

Here's a novel(old-fashioned)idea that worked for me: Abstinence before marriage. Self-control and a willingness to tolerate long-term gratification are required.

I don't have an answer for the married law students without health insurance but to research options for free contraception (or to practice periodic abstinence).

Choosing a non-Catholic law school is another possibilty. Of course, Fluke finds that to be an unacceptable, unreasonable compromise.

Is this a good time for snarky comments about the allegorical similarity between the legal profession and another one?

I wonder how much more it cost for STDs and psych evaluations and medications.