parents: tattoo this picture on the inside of your tween's eyelids
The Catholic Church, moral paragon of all recent millenia, is leading the charge against the Obama Administration’s decision requiring health insurance companies to offer the option of prescription birth control coverage to women.
According to bloviating bishops + many republicans, this option infringes on an insurance company’s 1st Amendment religious right to deny medication…or something.
(Imagine if the Church had confronted its rampant pedophilia problem with such zeal.)
Rick Santorum is taking time away from bemoaning the horror of granting property + visitation rights to two dudes who love eachother in order to consolidate the haters behind this issue. Mitt Romney is losing ground because conservatives don’t believe he’s really into controlling the reproductive health of women and shrinking government down to the size where he can save it from your vagina. (That’s -1, Mittens.)
Politically, this issue may fire up the GOP “base,” but for most Americans, the antiquated war on women’s health is probably getting old. The fact that birth control is beneficial to women’s health by allowing them to regulate periods, space out pregnancies, etc. is just too much to handle, and certainly infringes on conservatives and the Church’s rights to regulate American uteruses (uteri?).
Furthermore, the fact that women have sex for pleasure (or because they’re bored, it’s Wednesday, etc) is enough to make some heads explode. However, that’s not true for the majority of Americans – Catholics included.
Public Religion Research Institute, asked if all employers should be required to offer healthcare plans that cover contraception:
- All Americans: broad agreement, 55%-40%
- Catholics: broad agreement, 58%-37%
the second survey asked the general question first (getting similar results to the PRRI survey) and then asked specifically if Catholic hospitals and universities should be included:
- All Americans: broad agreement, 57%-39%
- Catholics: broad agreement, 53%-45%
Don’t worry, Bishops. There will probably be a bigger religious exemption so you can still provide your white-haired minions with a 4-hour Boner Pill to produce genetically messed up sperm, while denying approved and prescribed drugs for female employees. At least your generation-to-generation consistency is admirable.
This is a tough one. It’s nearly impossible to keep up with everything that is offending various conservative and religious groups from time to time but I think there are some interesting concerns around this particular issue. There have been many battles fought over the years regarding the separation of church and state, most of them won by supporters of that separation and much to the chagrin of religious types. For all of the efforts to keep religion out of our government this is clearly a reverse example of government getting involved in religious matters.
Putting aside the validity of the argument to not allow birth control and ignoring the stupidity of the comparison that follows, it’s akin to the government telling synagogues around the country that they have to serve pork at their bingo nights (or whatever Jews have). Birth control is not illegal in the United States and even if a woman works for a religious organization that does not offer contraceptive coverage in their health plan it does not restrict her legal right to obtain said contraceptives, only her financial wherewithal to do so. I don’t agree with the Catholic Church’s stance on birth control and I think they are fighting a losing battle, but it is a case of the federal government infringing on a religious organization and preventing it from following one of it’s stated beliefs. When someone takes a job with a religious organization I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to understand that there may be restrictions and rules that they would not face in the secular world and deal with the ramifications of that.
Setting aside the church v. state side of things, my other issue with this recent ruling is the requirement that all organizations offer birth control free of charge, without a co-pay. There’s no doubt it has benefits and expands access to contraceptives – even a generous co-pay of $10/month frees up a meaningful $120 for many women and families. That being said, health care has a cost and companies cannot be asked to shoulder the burden of the cost of providing what is largely an optional medication. My Dad’s company helps businesses find their benefit plans and every year I see the insane increases in costs for foundries, schools and other small businesses as premiums skyrocket. Companies often have to make difficult decisions to keep coverage affordable a) for the company and b) for the costs passed onto employees – hence the shrinking benefits and increasing premiums and co-pays that everyone sees year after year. I find it difficult to see where the line should be drawn for medications that have to be provided without a co-pay. Should companies be required to provide anti-depressants without a co-pay? Cardiovascular drugs like Lipitor? It’s a slippery slope and while I am as pro-women’s health as I imagine one can be I don’t understand the preference given to contraceptives.
The church v. state argument could all be put to bed under a single-payer system but as long as companies, including religious organizations, have to offer their own health care plans I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to design a plan that works within the boundaries of that organizations beliefs.
i appreciate this perspective – particularly when it comes to the burden of who’s paying. That’s a broader + different issue not really addressed.
h/w, I (a) don’t believe this is a constitutional winner for the Church as states like GA + MA have had similar laws on the books, there already is a religious exception that’s likely to expand + they don’t have to provide any coverage if their beliefs are “threatened” (that was seen in DC with gay marriage issue last year) H/w, (b) If employers, religious or otherwise, provide coverage, they shouldn’t dictate medical relationships b/t doctors and patients when it comes to preventative treatment (again, burden of cost is another issue). We’re not talking about cosmetic procedures or coverage for Propecia, which some plans provide.
also, condoms are the worst.
This is one reason why, in onlnie discussions, I am very quick to point out that I am NOT an American conservative Christian , but a Canadian one. It really bugs me that these people are so public about their morals when it’s so clear that whatever they’re doing ain’t working. It bugs me even more that so many of my American friends/acquaintances automatically think of these clowns when I tell them that I believe in abstinence and plan to teach it to my kids.From my own personal experience and observation, I know that there is a right way to teach your children abstinence and to help them succeed. It’s completely possible. I have seen it work too many times for me to think that abstinence just plain doesn’t work. Unfortunately many parents miss the mark.