Women Don't See GOP’s War on Contraceptives as About Religion

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Hormonal medication, the birth control method that provides women the most control over their own reproductive system, also alleviates severe menstral bleeding, painful menstrual cramping, and symptoms of ovarian cysts.
And, it requires a doctor's prescription. If you don't have health insurance, that doctor's visit can cost you between $100 - $500, There are some WalMart clinics that may charge $60 -$100 for a visit, but frankly, I've vowed never to step foot in a Walmart (I have issues with the company's devastating effects on Main Street USA, treatment of workers, and unflagging commitment to China's authoritarian economy).
Then, of course, there's the cost of the medication itself, which can run between $20 - $50 per month, if it's not covered by health insurance.
Frankly, even assuming that women don't need hormonal medication for problems related to menstruation (which, of course, some do), would you trust cheap contraception products from WalMart over which you have limited control to protect you from pregnancy, one of life's most affecting medical conditions?
Not me.
This is a medical issue. And a religious freedom issue. The question is, does the Catholic Church have the religious liberty to limit the freedom of its female workers, many of whom aren't Catholic, in cheaply accessing hormonal medication for birth control and the alleviation of menstruation and ovarian cysts symptoms?
One question I would ask is why are the U.S. Bishops in such an outrage over this issue? Why are they loathe to affiliate themselves with health insurers that might provide birth control to their employees, but so complacent about their relationship with the U.S. Government? After all, the U.S. Government upholds access to abortion and the Death Penalty, but that doesn't prevent the Catholic Church from receiving billions of dollars in tax breaks and funding for social services.
If the Catholic Church truly wanted to make a strong moral stand, it would forgo the billions and billions of dollars it receives every year from the federal government. Now THAT would say something. But, until then, the Bishops' cries of governmental tyrrany ring pretty hollow.

Cynthia of CA 8:01AM June 05, 2012

The Catholic institutions issue IS about the First Amendment, no matter how fast liberals and others are spinning it to other side issues, or inventing a smear against the GOP.
Women can still have sex, buy contraception at Walmart.com for $5.97-$6.47 (condoms) and from $6.94-$20, with a number of non-condom contraception products in between $7-20.
There's 22 listed on Walmart's website, and at least some of the affordable contraception options are sold at Walmart stores. I bet that isn't the only store you can buy them in (online is also a very present way to buy things now).
Count them - 22.
Ya think Sandra Fluke & others can buy them in person, or order them online?
If she's too poor to buy them, maybe her boyfriend can help.
Walmart didn't have FEMALE condoms, but they don't cost a lot, either.
or buy female & male condoms.
Actually, check this out. Poor Sandra Fluke isn't denied contraception & I wouldn't vote to ban it, either:
http://www.walmart.com/search/search-ng.do?search_query=contraception&ic=16_0&Find=Find&search_constraint=5431

HarryFromMA of MA 9:59PM March 20, 2012

The ObamaCare/ACA HHS mandate is FIRST AMENDMENT issue. It's irrelevant on what issue it's being applied to.
~ First Amendment:
# "CONGRESS"
# "SHALL MAKE NO LAW"
# "RESPECTING THE *ESTABLISHMENT* OF RELIGION"
# "OR *PROHIBITING* THE *FREE* EXERCISE THEREOF;"
James Madison maintained:
1785: "Because if Religion be EXEMPT from the authority of the Society at large, STILL LESS can it be subject to that of the *Legislative Body*."
- James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments-Point #2, June 20, 1785. Papers 8:198-304
1789: "The civil rights of NONE shall be abridged ON ACCOUNT OF religious belief or worship, nor shall any NATIONAL *RELIGION* be ESTABLISHED".
- James Madison's 1st draft, the religion clause. June 8, 1789
Founding father, Patrick Henry did say:
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."
So, a good close paraphrase is: "Congress, a Legislative Body, shall pass no laws establishing a state religion, nor shall Congress prohibit the FREE exercise of religion."
So, a religious institution and person should not be forced to pay for, or provide for, contraception, whatever it is, if it violates their faith.
BTW, Fluke & Co can get $9 contraceoption from Wal-Mart or buy female and male condoms.
Just sayin....
The real issue is First Amendment.
Spinning that issue doesn't change the legal reality from "the Supreme Law of the Land".

HarryFromMA of MA 1:59PM March 20, 2012

If the government provided access to contraceptives for both men and women - vasectomies are a simple procedure - this would cost the taxpayers must less than providing help for poor moms and their children. And this often includes a prison stay when the child comes of age.

Jay B Born of GA 1:44PM March 12, 2012

There's no war on contraceptives by Republicans. The GOP is too indifferent to women to even pursue their votes - even though 53% of voters in 2008 were women. The old white dudes running the GOP are stuck in time.

Jay B Born of GA 1:41PM March 12, 2012

Maybe it's class warfare. Women who can afford birth control (and presumbably babies) get to have as much sex as they want. Other women, who cannot afford it (and presumably cannot afford to have babies) are on their own. That's fair.
These people against this are probably the same people who oppose abortion, but will do absolutely nothing to make abortions unnecessary. No birth control, no sex ed, aka biology (not sex orientation, sex ed), it's all so ridiculous.

bing of AL 8:14PM March 05, 2012

bruce b needs to keep his legs closed; then he wouldn't have to worry about any contraceptives, eh?

the other bruce of NV 9:34AM March 03, 2012

schaefer of ca.needs some enlightenment.aside from preventing an unwanted pregnancy,many women use contraception for various medical reasons.
logic should also prevail,that it;s better to prevent a pregnancy ,as opposed to an abortion.

bruce b of NV 2:25AM March 03, 2012

Oh Dear Andy - I Think You've Got Your Panties in a Twist...
Nothing you wrote has anything to do with people accepting responsibility for there own actions.
"Let folks pay for their own birth control. If you're old enough to have sex you should be mature enough to handle the associated issues and costs without running to the government for more free stuff or increased regulations on private parties.
Bunch of whining ninnies."
Andy, you appear to be a ninny in need of a nanny. But don't feel badly - that condition is common among pseudo intellectual progressives such as yourself.
It's a shame there's not a "pill" for that condition.

R.L. Schaefer of CA 3:00PM March 02, 2012

I can only speak for myself and all the Jehovah's Witnesses business owners I've known. Since contraception and the taking of blood transfusions is a personal matter, we would never campaign for or against what is a personal matter. JW's have had health insurance for their employees when they could and have never tried to negotiate the terms concerning these 2 matters. We are completely neutral when it comes to matters concerning government and contraception is quickly becoming a political hot potato which game we don't play.

Robin Morgan of MO 12:46PM March 02, 2012