This is somewhat ameliorated by ObamneyCare©‘s provision making it possible for “children” to stay on their parents plan .

But what if the plan itself has an internally self-contradictory mechanism that both offers coverage but then declines to pay out benefits under it?

Hunh?

Here’s the issue:

“.”

So what’s the problem?

Well:

“[M]any students … were turned away when they tried to obtain contraception or a prescription for it at campus health centers.”

And therein lies the rub (so to speak):

If one must buy the student health insurance (as many – most? – universities require), and the policy at once states that there’s coverage, but limits that coverage to University-sponsored facilities which explicitly deny coverage for a product or procedure, than one is essentially paying for something which can never actually be covered.

Now, I’m not necessarily supportive of Universities providing birth control items, and I’m definitely unhappy with a law requiring insurance coverage for lifestyle choices. But it is (apparently) the law, and it seems to me that Fordham is blatantly flouting it.