There are two options here:
1. It's bad for Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood claims contraception is 33.5 percent of their services. Under the contraception mandate, every job creator in the country would now be its own little mini Planned Parenthood and provide these services instead.
Wouldn't that threaten a large justification for Planned Parenthood's existence, and certainly its federal funding?
You would think Planned Parenthood would be nervous about such a massive effort to undercut its business, wouldn't you?
Obama has ensured ALL women will have access to #birthcontrol coverage, with no co-pays, no additional hurdles, no matter where they work.
— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) February 10, 2012
There's another option:
2. It's good for the bottom line of Planned Parenthood's billion-dollar budget.
Although no one on the pill would pay anything directly for birth control, they would still have to "buy" it somewhere, right? (And by "buy," the government translation in this case means "trigger a government reimbursement.")
Imagine, "millions of American women" getting birth control from the "largest provider" of birth control at a rate of $600 per year and $18,000 over a lifetime—"millions of American women!"
This would indeed mean "no additional hurdles" for that provider's bottom line.
Either way, the hypocrisy here runs thick.
Scenario #1: If most of the federal funding for Planned Parenthood affiliates is used to pay for contraception, then why isn't this mandate a threat to their existence?
Scenario #2: With so much money pouring in because of comprehensive contraceptive coverage, then with its supposedly core services now already funded why is federal funding necessary?
Planned Parenthood can't have it both ways. Federal funding can no longer be essential if it is mostly used to pay for something that would be paid for by employers.
It's almost as if Planned Parenthood wants to get money from you twice: once through the government, and again through your employer.