The Problems With the Catholic Church and Birth Control

Reader Comments
Back to blog

You don't understand. It really doesn't matter what you think or what anyone thinks about birth control. It matters what the dogma of the Catholic Church teaches and that's all. Why should a not for profit organization have to pay for anything? Why should the Catholic church have to go against it's teaching because Obama says so? That is the problem. The separation of Church and State is what is at sake. The Catholic Church doesn't stop women from taking birth control or anything else. Don't pretend to think that you understand the most misunderstood faith on the planet and the most bigotted against for that matter.
Once you let the "State" tell you that you have to do something then the door is opened and they can keep going. Liberty is what is at stake. Religious freedom is at stake. The world is blind!
Obama wants to control everything we do. You don't get it!

Pat of NY 1:42PM March 04, 2012

When I first heard this controversy, I initially thought it was government overreach. But then one of my female professional friends really dug into me with the woman's perspective and came up with very valid points. Although, I do agree with the Republicans that religious institutions should not have to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs, the woman's health should be a priority. Based on the argument of my female friend, it sounded more like she was worried about bearing the financial burden of birth control as if she was solely responsible for her health. Although, ultimately that is true, the financial burden of contraception should also be the responsibility of the man in her life, especially when it comes to bringing a child into the world or preventing one.
Your radio show also informed me that there are other reasons for contraception besides preventing pregnancy. For that reason, then yes, the religious institutions should include that in their health package because it isn't going against their religious laws. But I guess this is a matter of the employer prying into the health records of the employee and that isn't good either.
In summary, I am not a woman and thanks to you and my female professional friend, I realize that there is a lot I don't know about this subject. But in general, government mandates on health in general to me seems a bit intrusive. For pregnancy prevention, the man in her life should definitely share in the financial burden of keeping his woman healthy. Everything else would be on a case by case basis that would involve the religious employer or the government prying into their lives, that is of course if the woman can't afford it herself.
Thanks for the insight Leslie. :-)

David Fanfan of NY 9:55PM February 24, 2012

Oh please. No one is telling you what to do with your body. Any institution should have the right to provide whatever insurance they provide to their employees. Second of all, your anology regarding a Muslim hospital requiring a veil for employees, or a Jewis hospital requiring all babies to be cercumsized fails since these institutions aren't forcing anything on anyone. If anyone is imposing anyone's views on anyone, it's the federal government telling private institutions what type of insurance they MUST provide. Whether it be a religious or non religious issue, there is bound to be some kind of insurance that goes against a private institution's conscience. This is why private insurance companies are a better idea then universal health care. 500 fools in Washington can't possibly know what's best for 300 milliam Americans. This is why the top down approach always fails.
Besides, contraceptives and condoms aren't too terribly expensive. Shouldn't the fact that 98% of Catholic women use or have used contraceptives tell us something. They obviously haven't had trouble getting them before. Excluding this from insurance plans is not going to deny them any "reproductive rights."

Michael Mount of FL 7:39PM February 18, 2012

I wonder...
In a "free society" isn't it the responsibility of an individual to pay for their habits and activities?
Further, if someone can't afford the $25 bucks a month for birth control pills there about a thousand government agencies who could supply them - thereby removing the moral burden from private groups or individuals.
Seems to me that our Egotist in Chief wants to flex his socialist muscles while drawing a line in the sand.
The thought of 4 more years of this narcissist in office sickens me.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 11:18AM February 13, 2012

what a certian segment of the religious population( the catholic bishops,rick santorum,ect. ) wont acknowledge is that a large number of women want to plan their families.then theres other women who have no interest in mother hood.
the backward thinkers still believe that having a sex life must result in reproduction.they also choose to ignore that for many women contraception is a health issue.

bruce b of NV 6:47PM February 12, 2012

Chad I think you missed the point a little. Sarah's point was that birth control pills shouldn't be considered elective. They are preventative. They prevent unwanted pregnancy. Guess what? They would save you, tax payers and the government money? Sarah was trying to get the point across that they should be part of all insurance plans. It is a form of sex discrimination and there has been cases in courts all across the nation from women who have been denied coverage by their insurance companies. Do your research, NARL has documented research papers. By the way, It's a little more than just a "inconvenience" to have children that you don't want or can't afford. It is a lifetime commitment. It is truely a medical need for all women. do you really think the human race is just going to stop having sex or use only abstinence for birth control? Guess what? Women are having sex with men! Who do you think carries the majority of the burdon not to become pregnant? We do! There is no reason to exempt women from insurance coverage. Companies have gotten by with it for to long. Slippery slope. Read my comments below.

Susan of IN 6:28PM February 11, 2012

Sarah,
My issue with your comments is the sense in your comments, that you should be entitled to these health care options at no charge to you. "You mean that a private citizen in the United States who elects to take Birth Control pills costing $50/month should have to go to a store and buy it with money out of their own pocket? Perish the thought! Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave."
I have no problem with you choosing to to have a hysterectomy, tubal ligation, or your husband have a vasectomy. That is your right as an American. But you seem to be unable to grasp that concept, that these "elective" procedures have a real cost, that you should save up for and pay for yourself. Or, go out on the open market and buy a supplemental insurance plan that will cover the things that you want covered.
Why should other taxpayers have to fund your elective procedures so that you can have a more convenient life style. (Yes, I know that for some people there are medical risk for getting pregnant, but the overwhelming use case for reproductive services is geared to lifestyle choices.)
Also, I think Bob has every right to express his opinion, because while neither he or I have a uterus, we do have jobs, and will be required to buy these extremely expensive insurance plans loaded down with with crap that we don't want, to subsidize your lifestyle choices. Maybe you should just tell Bob "Thank you for paying higher insurance premiums so that I can have sex whenever I want without the natural consequences."

Chad Cooper of GA 2:28PM February 11, 2012

Oh and "BOB" you seriously think women can just walk up to the pharmacy at Walmart and purchase $4-$9 birth control packs?
You should know, that this is not true. Women needs prescriptions for birth control. That requires an office visit, which will be unpaid by our insurance. Then, it requires a pap smear (again, unpaid) so maybe $200 later, we have a prescription. Then, we can go to the pharmacy. Although, what if we cannot take those generic forms that are $9 a month? (I know I can't) then we have to pay aproximately $50 a month.
OR
What if we decide after 4 children that we would like to have a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation or my husband needs a vasectomy to prevent any more unwanted children? Nope, not one cent of those surgical procedures would be covered for us. We would have to either A.) Continue paying yearly office visits and monthly birth control fees out of pocket until I reach menopause OR B.) Pay for the surgical sterilization OOP. We are talking THOUSANDS of dollars.
Your statements "Bob" are misinformed, and frankly I don't think that you should open your mouth since you have no uterus to protect in the first place.

Sarah of IN 12:59PM February 11, 2012

Susan, I agree with you.
Women of all races, religions, ages, and occupations should have access to basic healthcare needs.
Bill, I wish that you would have the opportunity to carry one child via pregnancy for 42 weeks, birth that child, and then reapeat times 5. You'r highly judgemental and misinformed opinions would surely change.
To state that pregnancy rarely causes health problems for women is so misinformed. As Susan stated, there are many complications that arise from multiple births, including death. You are an ignorant prude if you state otherwise.

Sarah of IN 12:52PM February 11, 2012

Bill, I just wanted to clarify one point I was trying to make. Preventative programs in insurance plans are in place to prevent further cost and or damage to your health. They save the companies $$$. That was the point I was trying to make. There are usually no copays for PREVENATIVE medications or exams. Preventing pregnancy saves money, have no doubt. You and i are already paying for the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. Medicaid covers pregnancy and birth and the rate of women delivering babies where i work at on it is about 60%, maybe even higher. That is thousands of dollars federal dollars for one normal birth.
Almost all companies charge a copay for any other services provided. Hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, whatever it is requiring ongoing treatment for ongoing medical care. Your scruples are not examined by the insurance company as to how you came to have a disease: STDS, alcoholism, hypertension related to obesity, drug rehab etc. we are facing a very slippery slope if we allow the companies and or church rule on this issue. They will start to deny claims saying it was preventable, therefore, we're not going to cover your treatment for lung cancer (you smoked) or hypertension (you were overweight), STD (you were raped), diabetes type 2 (overweight, poor diet control) or you contracted AIDS (you had sex). See where I'm going here? Provide preventative health care to ALL women regardless of age, race or religion. If your catholic and don't agree, no one is forcing you to take it. Although, stats show 98% of all women nationwide do use a form of birth control at some point in their lives. That includes catholic women. Hypocritical, don't you think?

Susan of IN 11:50AM February 11, 2012