February 16, 2012
The newest controversy sweeping the nation is the Obama Administration’s contraception policy. According to the policy, all employers must provide their employees with birth control, contraception, and the morning-after pill as part of their health insurance plans. This policy has come under heavy fire from the Catholic community—which has declared Obama’s policy to be a declaration of war on religion. They say that the policy forces their institutions to adhere to a set of morals that they do not agree with. The issue, however, is not that simple. In fact, the act does acknowledge the differences in moral beliefs originating from religion.
The new policy actually does not force all religious institutions to provide their employees with birth control. The policy states that institutions that serve only co-religionists are completely exempt from this act. The controversy comes into play because the act does not extend exemptions to “religiously-affiliated” institutions, like Catholic schools or charities. This solution is fair because these institutions work with a variety of people of different cultures and beliefs. Refusing to give their employees birth control because they have a different set of moral beliefs is akin to forcing one’s religious beliefs on another. Why should a secular employee of a Catholic college be denied contraception when every other business employee in America will receive it in their insurance plan? Religious public institutions provide services to the public and cannot be exempt from rules that apply to other public institutions.
It seems that in this debate, though, everyone has forgotten the most important facet of the contraception policy: Womyn’s rights. According to a blog post by Zack Beauchamp entitled “Controlling Birth Control, Controlling Liberty,” 98 percent of all womyn define birth control as the right to choose when to have a family. Many religious communities advocate abstinence because sex before marriage is seen as immoral. It would seem that the major complaint would be that offering their employees birth control results in supporting immoral activities.
Yet, this argument is flawed because birth control affects married womyn too. Let’s say we have a Catholic woman. She abstains from sex until she gets married (which is when it is no longer immoral to have sex according to most religions) and decides she wants to have sex with her husband. What if neither of them is ready for children? She would be unable to choose when to have a family even though she is using the contraceptives for an action that the Catholic church does not define as “immoral.”
Another flaw of this argument is that the Catholic community has defined contraceptives themselves as sins when, in reality, they serve as mere vehicles to a sin. In my opinion, vehicles are not inherently evil. Guns and knives are lethal and dangerous (they have been used as weapons often), but it is not their existence that is evil. Rather, when others use them to kill they become evil.
Besides this point, some would make the argument that womyn should simply purchase birth control on their own. The flaw in this argument is the price of birth control. According to Beauchamp, a birth control plan at $81 a month with no contributions from one’s insurance can still price out many womyn. Not providing birth control discriminates against womyn of lower classes and their right to choose when to have a family. In turn, if these womyn cannot afford contraception, they are more likely to receive an abortion or more expensive hospital care—two far less ideal outcomes.
Moreover, the Administration recently revealed a significant change to the contraception policy: Religious institutions that serve the public still have to provide contraceptive coverage but now, instead of giving it to the employee directly, the employee must obtain birth control from the insurance company itself. In light of this change, the President’s policy is clearly not an attack on religion. This compromise shows that the Obama administration is open to hearing the complaints of the religious communities, and to making changes that benefit both sides. Again, the cry that Obama is attacking religion and passing an unconstitutional policy is false.
The real tragedy here it is that womyn have been deprived of basic health care rights for so long. A woman’s right to choose when to have a family—which is often denied by many religious communities—is the single most important issue at stake. I say it is in the best interest of Americans to support this policy, as all womyn will benefit from such critical contraception coverage.