Response to Robert and Rick

Robert has given five reasons for voting "No".  It seems to me that Robert's first, second, and fifth reasons are reasons for opposing, or for being skeptical about, the use of contraceptives generally.  The question I asked, however, or meant to ask, is whether one who neither opposes nor is (inordinately) skeptical about the use of contraceptives generally should vote "Yes" or "No".

As I read them, Robert's third and fourth reasons--which Rick endorses--suggest that easier access to contraceptives will encourage couples to engage in, and more difficult access to contraceptives will discourage them from engaging in, pre-marital sex.  But why should be believe that?  At best, more difficult asccess to contraceptives will discourage some couples from engaging in some forms of pre-marital sexual intimacy and encourage them to engage in other forms.  And, in any event, easier access to contraceptives will encourage couples determined to engage in pre-marital sexual intercourse to do so in a responsible--i.e., contracepted--manner.

In his post, Rick writes:  "The contraception-subsidy proposal involves, among other things, the expression-through-law of a position that, it seems to me, we might want to avoid expressing-through-law."  Rick, can you be more explcit:  What is the position to which you are referring?  Please spell it out.  What position is it, precisely, that, in your judgment, the proposal expresses that we ought to be wary about "expressing-through-law"?