Why free birth control, when nearly every woman actually NEEDS something else?

The Democratic party has been continually dragging out the ridiculous piece of nonsense that says every American woman needs and deserves to have free birth control and free abortions, paid for by every other taxpaying citizen, regardless of potential moral objections on the part of the payers.  You know what?  I don't need to have somebody fork over large sums of money (as much as $9 per month, if I go to some of the national chains!).  I have managed to keep getting pregnant, now, for the past two decades, using the most basic, most reliable, safest method known to humanity.  Granted, twenty years of celibacy have not exactly been easy, but then, the most worthwhile things in life seldom come gift-wrapped and requiring no effort.

Still, I don't really care one way or the other, if every woman in this country rejects my method.  What you all do in your bedrooms, showers, kitchens, car back seats, or wherever -- that's none of my business, as long as you don't require that I fund it for you.  And, in my financial condition, it will remain none of my business for a long time to come (so to speak).

However, if you want my support for a genuine health issue all women from adolescence onward until childbearing years are past, I've got one for you.  Feminine hygiene products could use a subsidy, if anything can.  Have you seen the price of the stuff in the embarrassing-to-guys aisle?  At the very cheapest, you're looking at ten bucks a month for the average woman, and, for those of us who have, erm,  uh, ahem... issues....   well, suffice it to say, for thirty years, I was forking over an amount which would stagger the imagination of Sandra Fluke's supporters.  

This is not to say that I think every taxpayer should pay extra so that I will have the pleasure of not going out and collecting cattails or rabbit fluff or some other filler that the pioneer women used.  I think I can work this one out for myself.  What I am saying is, it seems to me that the Democrats have put the cart before the horse.  You usually have to be of childbearing years -- and, either sexually active or planning to become active -- before you need birth control (if you need hormones for some other reason, that's not birth control, any more, but medical treatment of a condition, which will still normally be covered by most health care packages).  Meanwhile, no matter what  method a woman uses to prevent pregnancy, as long as she's successful at that, she's going to need -- and I do mean need -- these other products, if she's going to function as a free, productive working woman.  If the Democrats were truly interested in having taxpayers fund women's needs, shouldn't they have gone there, first?  

I guess the issue isn't really rational thought, it isn't really about women's needs, but about killing First Amendment rights.