The hearings weren't "against contraception". They were about whether the current status quo, where certain institutions aren't required to pay for contraception, can continue to do so.
Also, the panels weren't weren't all male - there were women on the second panel from Catholic schools supporting the "religious freedom" position.
And no, contraception isn't anywhere near $1000/year. Walmart charges $4/month while Target and CVS charge $9. Even at $20/month, we're looking at less than $250/year. (The required medical appointment is already covered so it doesn't need to be added.) IUDs and the like are less.
Condoms don't account for the difference. Yes, you can pay $1 each, but if you're going through $750/year, you should be buying multi-condom packages. Amazon charges $0.14-$0.30 for small packages.
Then again, the person claiming to spend $1000 is a lawyer-wanna-be, so maybe she's engaged in creative billing.
A "primary issue"? No. Most contraceptives are used for preventing pregnancy.
However, the "other conditions" case IS covered, and this wasn't about that.
> The particular one that works for that use is prescribed, which most certainly can be 1000USD/year.
The question is never "how much can you get someone to pay" but "how little can be paid".
Walmart sells multiple varieties, so citation needed that $1k/year is at all reasonable.
