No, you're wrong. On several things you're absolutely wrong. SUch as "What I've heard is that approvals were already okay for non-contraceptive use. It's a strawman, in any regard - it's still something that can be bought outside of insurance very affordably."
What you've heard is incorrect. It's not a strawman. Non-contraceptive use of birth control pills is usually far more expensive than standard birth control. Clearly, you haven't bought birth control pills because you don't know much about it. So, you're wrong.
Nobody would bitch about "exemptions for condoms" because they're dirt cheap and CAN BE HAD WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION therefore they are not PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE durp durp durp
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-03-06 01:01 am (UTC)No, you're wrong. On several things you're absolutely wrong. SUch as "What I've heard is that approvals were already okay for non-contraceptive use. It's a strawman, in any regard - it's still something that can be bought outside of insurance very affordably."
What you've heard is incorrect. It's not a strawman. Non-contraceptive use of birth control pills is usually far more expensive than standard birth control. Clearly, you haven't bought birth control pills because you don't know much about it. So, you're wrong.
Nobody would bitch about "exemptions for condoms" because they're dirt cheap and CAN BE HAD WITHOUT A PRESCRIPTION therefore they are not PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE durp durp durp