That seems wise to me, as some people, if not Methodists per my understanding of the Church's teachings, feel strongly about that, just as others feel strongly in the other direction.

That's why always we're free to donate money on a tax deductible basis to charities like Planned Parenthood that provide birth control services at a subsidized cost, and should always be free to do so.

Voting with one's wallet is fundamental to Liberty, and always has been, and always will be, just as voting with other people's wallets who object to what is being voted for always is a source of potential political conflict.

Granted, one must chose sometimes to use State coercion to make people pay for things that they don't want, like wars for pacifists, but, when the political feedback is negative enough,  that's part of how we maintain a free order too, like with the birth control issue and President Obama's apparent decision to change course with respect to religious institutions, like Catholic schools and universities.

Nor of course should people like Planned Parenthood be harrassed by the Congress in the other direction, as long as they abide by the rules passed by the Congress, as for example with uses of federal funds per abortion.

It would seem like Planned Parenthood in fact abides by those federal rules, since they aren't stupid as to knowing the consequences of not abiding by those rules per federal funding.

Thus, the whole Susan Komen blowup was a bad mistake too on the part of the other side of such political divides over social issues, the divides that of course drive such issues always.

Of course, should Planned Parenthood wish, it could certainly calve off that abortion activity of birth control provision to a non-profit corporate entity that would probably be significantly less controversial, if that's their choice too.

That's because under our Constitution, non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood are free to solicit donations for whatever lawful activity it is that they wish to pursue, abortion provision included as it stands under our laws.

In this country as to contraception, we're always free to vote with our privately owned dollars, especially when the amount of money is not large per person, like $300 a year, on average, for contraception.

If people feel that strongly about providing contraception to the poor, or even middle class, and Methodists certainly don't oppose that for married couples per my understanding, they certainly remain free to do so with their own money, rather than using the political system to force people like Catholics who don't like contraception in any guise to be made to feel like they are participating indirectly in something they feel is deeply wrong, especially if the amount of money isn't large, which on average its not in the case of contraception.

Of course private insurers are also free to decide under our political and economic order as well if it is in fact optimal for them to offer coverage that does cover contraception, possibly on the theory that such plans would be more attractive to ultimate payers with large numbers of female employees, since as an actuary friend of mine pointed out, it has always been the case that as an pure economic-actuarial matter of fact, contraception is most definitely cheaper than babies.

As to voluntarism in American life that is the ultimately most important part of our Liberty, professional women in particular could certainly afford to "adopt" two or three of their less fortunate sisters, if that's really what this was all about, which of course it wasn't, but rather an underlying and ongoing dispute about sexual morality in the modern world.

finis