Bobby Jindal pens an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that champions making oral contraceptives available on an over-the-counter; not prescription basis.
It fights back against the baseless, political charge that the GOP wants to strip women of birth control, and fights back in a very proactive way -- Women shouldn't just have access, they should have very easy access.
But getting to the heart of it, I suspect most Americans actually would nod their heads at and agree with Jindal's fundamental point: women should have easy, universal access to contraception, but employers -- particularly ones who object to the morning-after or week-after pill -- shouldn't be forced to pay for those particular forms of contraception.
As an unapologetic pro-life Republican, I also believe that every adult (18 years old and over) who wants contraception should be able to purchase it.
But anyone who has a religious objection to contraception should not be forced by government health-care edicts to purchase it for others. And parents who believe, as I do, that their teenage children shouldn't be involved with sex at all do not deserve ridicule.
And in that vein, I also suspect most Americans would by sympathetic to stores like Hobby Lobby which could face a penalty of $1 million/day by not providing morning-after and week-after pills.
Hobby Lobby is owned by deeply-religious Christians who view those particular pills as abortion, and naturally, would rather not subsidize something they see as morally reprehensible.
Again, most would probably agree that Hobby Lobby should be excepted from the provision -- just like churches and certain religious organizations.
But... the counter is that if an exception is made for Hobby Lobby, you might see businesses all over the land suddenly growing pro-life-themed-compasses only so they can get out of providing the coverage.
That's why it was always dicey, in the first place, to go there with this bit in the legislation.