Last week I linked to an article in The Economist that rejected religious objections to the Institute of Medicine’s recent recommendation that health insurance plans provide free coverage for birth control, breast-pump rentals, counseling for domestic violence, and annual wellness exams and HIV tests.

Writing on the blog Talking Philosophy, Mike Labossiere has expanded on The Economist’s discussion, focusing specifically on several objections to covering birth control. Here’s his conclusion, though the entire post is worth reading:

As a final point, it seems sensible and morally correct to have birth control covered. This coverage might help reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus result in less costs (monetary and social). If so, covering birth control could turn out to be financially a good idea-even if premiums are increased, the overall costs might be lower. There is also the moral argument that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would create more happiness than unhappiness-and also perhaps reduce the number of abortions. Then again, maybe the coverage will have no impact-it all depends on how many women forgo birth control on the basis of cost.