Debate Club

Should Catholic and Other Religious Institutions Have to Cover Birth Control? >

Blame the Church, Not the State

Birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary

February 9, 2012

About Joan Hoff:

Joan Hoff is research professor of history at Montana State University, Bozeman and author of books on women's rights and U.S. foreign policy and politics, including Law, Gender and Injustice and Faustian Foreign Policy from Woodrow Wilson to George W. Bush.

What is being called Obama's attack on Christianity is really the Catholic Church's attack on women's full access to preventive healthcare, specifically contraception. Since the church has never been a champion of women's rights, its opposition to the Obama healthcare legislation that requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students, was expected. The administration's policy exempts churches themselves and will have no effect on doctors who object to prescribing contraception. This section of the president's healthcare law will also help make birth control cheaper for millions of women.

[Catholic Birth Control Fight About Healthcare, Not Just Religion.]

The announcement made last month was actually the result of a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine, an independent group of doctors and researchers that concluded that birth control is not just a convenience but is medically necessary "to ensure women's health and well-being." According to the Institute of Medicine report, which was released last July, about half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and about 4 of 10 of those end in abortion. It noted that providing birth control could lower both pregnancy and abortion rates. It also cited studies showing that women with unintended pregnancies are more likely to be depressed and to smoke, drink, and delay or skip prenatal care, potentially harming fetuses and putting babies at increased risk of being born prematurely and having low birth weight.

Rather than accept these positive socio-economic and cultural facts. Republican candidates have said that moral and religious values weigh heavily in birth control issues and that the Obama administration's announcement was a direct attack on religious freedom and a violation of conscience instead of what it was: a thoughtful attempt to ensure an essential preventive health service to women regardless of where they work.

[Obamacare Birth Control Mandate Tramples Religious Liberty.]

In actuality, opposition to contraceptive policies is an attempt to deny separation of church and state by imposing religious views on all Americans working in and insured by what are church owned or run institutions such as hospitals, social service agencies, and colleges. Such institutions are de facto businesses, not churches whose primary purpose is to spread the faith. Recognizing this, 28 states have laws that require all employers to provide insurance that pays for contraceptive policies. Moreover, despite Catholic teachings, surveys have found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as in the general population, have used contraceptives. Approximately three quarters of Catholic women regularly make use of contraceptive to control their reproductive lives and general heath. If there ever was a compelling interest on the part of the government to provide an essential preventive service to women, this is it. Male-dominated religious institutions such as the Catholic Church and the current crop of Republican presidential candidates should not be able to impose their religious values on over half the American population by hiding behind their politically motivated and sexist interpretation of the First Amendment.

[Rick Newman: Obama's Common-Sense Deficit.]

The intent of those opposing the broadest possible application of preventive health services to American women by the Obama administration are not unlike those supporters of 1873 Comstock law and 1919 Prohibition Amendment, which were misguided attempts to legislate public morality. The "free exercise" clause of religion in the First Amendment does not include imposing views that have the potential to harm the health of all women or to legitimize this stealth attempt to dictate public morality by arguing that religious freedom requires it.

Tags:
religion,
Barack Obama,
Obama administration,
birth control
Other Arguments
#1
#2

No — The uproar over Obama's choice has to do with more than contraception

JEANNE MONAHAN, Director of the Center for Human Dignity at the Family Research Council

#3

Yes — Family planning is the most effective tool we have in reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion

JESSICA ARONS, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at Center for American Progress

#4
#5

No — Obama is dependent upon continued feminist support for his re-election

JANICE SHAW CROUSE, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute

#6
#7
#8
#9

Yes — No one is telling the Catholic Church that it cannot hold its views on contraception

ROGER N. LANCASTER, Director of Cultural Studies at George Mason University

#10

Yes — Contraception is a key component of basic healthcare for women of all faiths

LOUISE MELLING, Deputy Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

If the Catholic Church and the GOP really cared about reducing abortions, teen pregnancy and the welfare of children they should be bending over backwards to support this rule by the dept. of HHS, but the sad trough is that the Catholic Church has had a century's long vendetta against the rights of women and has contributed to the gynocide (wrongful killing of females) through witch hunts, and the inquisition. They also do not care about the about protecting children. The Catholic Church did its best to hide its own epidemic of sexual abuse of children within its own ranks. It failed to protect those in society that are in most need of protection and willfully contributed to their torment. Actually considering the vile record of the Catholic Church and the disgusting ideology they promote and try to coerce others into following, I'd say its about time that someone declared war on them. Furthermore this rule affects NO ONE"S ABILITY TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION! Catholics who actually believe church doctrine (roughly 70% don't) are free to multiply in bliss without contraception, all this rule does is require that the protestant Nurse who works for them not be denied access to affordable birth control because she works for one of the Nation's largest private employers.

TreArrow of WI 9:52AM February 11, 2012

NO. What if I slapped you in the face and spit in your face, and then told you that it was good for you. Would you accept such a ludicrous statement? Of course not! So why should people of faith accept such treatment from the President of our country? That is also ludicrous.

K. Borne of MD 4:54PM February 10, 2012

Killing children in the womb is unethical, immoral, diabolical, and despicable -- it is definitely *NOT* healthcare. I ask you: which option provides women with greater respect and healthcare: (a) give them a morning-after pill to kill their child and ruin their bodies; or (b) practice safe sex! If you are blinded by your liberal bias, then let me give you a hint : the answer is *not* (a). By the way, if you don't accept my first sentence up above that abortion is killing a living human being, then you are anti-science, anti-human, anti-life, and anti-woman!

Stavros C. I. of DC 4:51PM February 10, 2012

About Debate Club

A meeting of the sharpest minds on the day's most important topics, Debate Club brings in the best arguments and lets readers decide which is the most persuasive. Read the arguments, then vote. And be sure to check back often to see who has gotten the most support—and also to see what's being discussed now in the Debate Club.


Have ideas about what the Club should be debating? E-mail it to dclub@usnews.com.


You can also join the debate on Facebook or follow Debate Club on Twitter.

Advertisement
Cartoons
Thomas Jefferson Street Blog
Romney's Bain Experience Wasn't Real American Capitalism

The fact that Bain Capital served to make money for investors, not to create jobs, could endanger Romney.

Why Is Mitt Romney Embracing Birther Donald Trump?

Maybe Trump is Romney's idea of a rich guy that common people can relate to?

Does Barack Obama Actually Want to Be Re-Elected?

The president's lack of enthusiasm jeopardizes his campaign.

3 Reasons Why the Scott Walker Wisconsin Recall Election Matters

Scott Walker is a canary in a coal mine.

The Right's Fixation With 'Vetting' Obama

American voters can use the past four years to judge Obama's qualifications as president

Voters Tuning Out Flood of 2012 Super PAC, Campaign Ads

This will be the year of grassroots voters, not Nielsen families.

Scott Walker's Union Fight Helps Mitt Romney Against Barack Obama

The Wisconsin governor refuses to back down from his opposition to collective bargaining.

Why Is It Only Women Who Need 'Informing' on Reproductive Health?

Men's sexual behavior could also use some "controlling."

Advertisement