When the healthcare law was passed one of the more noteworthy parts was its requirement that all health plans provide preventive services free of charge. This includes vaccinations and mammograms. But beginning this year this provision also extends to birth control pills, IUDs and other forms of contraceptives. Not surprisingly, as this has to do with birth control, the Catholic church was not happy. What brought the furry from the Catholic leadership is the announcement from the Obama administration that it would hold most religious institutions to this mandate. Some examples of religious institutions that will be held accountable are religious schools, charities and hospitals. The administration has agreed to a one year delay of the rule, but this has not stopped Catholic leaders from decrying this decision as infringing on the practice of their religion, as they view birth control pills as "abortion-inducing drugs".
The arguments are being framed as this provision being a threat to religious freedoms, and that these entities are being forced to decide whether to provide a service they see as abhorrent, or get out of public service entirely. but that is not the case at all. This, as the argument goes, results in government hindering these facilities to do good. But the Obama administration is not forcing religious institutions to pass out free birth control. Rather, they are taking a wise and long overdue approach to women's health as a whole.
The effected institutions are part of the public square. They are not private by any regard, serving the public and the public interest. This goes for medical care, education, etc. I don't think there are very many among us who would disagree that government does play a part in employment and how employers treat their employees. Saying that you object to these regulations because of your conscience does not hold water, as it would effectively nullify any regulation at all, as this would be the trump card played by any company to prevent change. If this were an issue of child labor laws, and these entities disagreed with these regulations based on religion, I don't think there'd be much support at all for that position.
Instead of couching this discussion as a religious freedoms argument, it should be more in the area of women's rights. Every time a discussion arises about reproduction it is usually some institution instilling their "values" on women, trying to regulate if and when they are permitted to have children. This is ludicrous no matter how you look at it. It is up to the woman to decide if she wants to start or continue a family, nobody else's. Yet this same debate happens whenever women's reproduction comes up, despite the fact that 98% of Catholic women have used some form of birth control.
There is also the financial aspect to consider. Birth control is not cheap. The cost of birth control now is $50-$100 a month. That is a massive expense to be put on a woman, and even if their insurance covers some, it still prices a lot of women out. The only way to combat this is by insurance, including employer policies, covering free birth control absent of any co-pay, which is what this provision is meant to do.
Religion obviously plays a massive part in our country's fabric. We respect all religions and allow the free practice of these religions. However, using religion as a crutch to prevent needed social change is not acceptable, and the Obama administration should be praised for taking this step in the face of such criticism. Again, this provision is not forcing individuals to take birth control, just giving them the option. If all of the employees at these institutions see birth control as an "evil" they are not obligated to obtain it. But the option is there, and that is what's important, having that choice. Choice does not devalue these religious entities, as everyone has a choice to follow what they believe and plan their lives how they see fit. Women should control their bodies, not a church. Hopefully this is a major step in that direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment