Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer had an op-ed at the Huffington Post about, among other related issues, the nonexistant threat that women will be denied birth control to treat medical conditions as a result of the Hobby Lobby decision. I personally know someone who works for a religious organization that doesn't cover contraception, but is nonetheless on the pill for a medical condition and gets it covered. Medicines frequently have multiple uses and it is not hard for insurance companies and religious employers to make these distinctions. They do it all the time.
But that's not what's curious about Boxer's op-ed. The senator relates the following anecdote:
They are women like Sandra from Los Angeles, who suffers from polycystic ovary syndrome and has used birth control since the age of 18 to treat her condition, which could otherwise render her infertile and put her at higher risk for complications like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. For women like Sandra, access to birth control is essential.
Gosh, I can think of one other well-known "Sandra from Los Angeles" that talks a lot about birth control. In fact, this story is recounted in a Los Angeles Register piece from April about Sandra Fluke's bid for a state senate seat in California:
She related the story of a law school friend who lost an ovary when she stopped taking birth control to help treat her polycystic ovarian syndrome because it was too expensive.
I suppose we could be possibly be dealing with multiple Sandras here. But the fact that Democrats can't argue on this topic without seeming to resort to examples provided by a single ambitious activist is a pretty good indicator access to birth control is not really a problem.