Which is fine. If you don't want to have sex out of marriage then don't have sex out of marriage. But that doesn't give anyone the right to dictate morality for anyone else, which is what social conservatives are trying to do by restricting access to contraception.
In this case a baptist minister went a bit too far on that.
You might have a point there if that were an isolated case, but it isn't. It's a common attitude among social conservatives, and it's clearly on display with the objections to the new contraception rules.
Married couples who don't want to have a baby would use contraception as well, which invalidates your argument that it is only for sluts.
The companies in the case and their supporters object to IUDs and morning-after pills, saying they cause abortions by blocking a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Groups that lobby for reproductive rights contend the drugs and devices prevent fertilization from occurring, which can lead to unwanted pregnancies and surgical abortions.
That's their problem. They don't want to use those things, they don't have to. They have no medical or legal right to prevent anyone use from using them if they choose.
That's a weak complaint.
Which is fine. If you don't want to have sex out of marriage then don't have sex out of marriage. But that doesn't give anyone the right to dictate morality for anyone else, which is what social conservatives are trying to do by restricting access to contraception.
You might have a point there if that were an isolated case, but it isn't. It's a common attitude among social conservatives, and it's clearly on display with the objections to the new contraception rules.
Then social conservatives should stop angling to restrict or ban contraceptives.
Again, that is neither medically nor legally valid.
That's their problem. They don't want to use those things, they don't have to. They have no medical or legal right to prevent anyone use from using them if they choose.