Birth Control Coverage

08 Feb

For those of you that haven’t heard, the Obama administration recently enacted legislation that requires employers to cover birth control on their health plans at no cost to the employee. This is great news for anyone that prefers to plan their families rather than leave it to chance. The legislation excluded church-affiliated universities, hospitals and schools. As can be imagined, someone had a problem with it, primarily Catholics and Evangelicals. Many church-affiliated organizations will be required to comply with this legislation with the option of a one-year exemption to make necessary plans.

Franciscan Sister Jane Marie Klein, head of 13 Catholic hospitals in Indiana and Illinois, showing absolutely no respect for anyone’s freedom but her own said, “This is nothing less than a direct attack on religion and First Amendment rights.” Really? Has the government forced you yourself to start taking birth control? Has the government required all women to start taking birth control? I don’t think so. The fact of the matter is that these organizations are upset because they’re losing their ability to control everyone else’s lives, Catholic/Evangelical or not, with their narrow-minded restrictions. Newsflash, not all of your employees believe what you believe, heck 98 percent of Catholics take birth control, the majority of your own congregation doesn’t believe it anymore.

Since these organizations aren’t legally allowed to hire only Catholic or Evangelical employees they need to be respectful of the varying beliefs of all of their employees. Previously, if an employee desired to take birth control and worked for such an organization, they had to pay full-price for it. The only way around this was if that employee was taking birth control for medical reasons, migraine control and/or to reduce the severity of their menstrual cycles, then they had to supply a letter from their doctor, essentially a permission slip so that it would be covered. So I don’t know what those organizations would expect then, “they better not be having sex while she’s on that medication so as not to reap the benefits of it, THEY’LL GO TO HELL.”

Honestly, I’m tired of hearing the largest and most powerful religions in this country talk about being attacked whilst taking aim at everyone else’s freedoms. A woman’s access to affordable and safe contraception is beneficial not only to herself but to this country as well, we don’t need our population swelling any more out of control than it already is. This can result in a significant decrease in people relying on social services. The benefits outweigh the risks, though the only foreseeable risk are these organizations being uncomfortable.

Full story on Washington Post


Posted by on February 8, 2012 in Political Crap


3 responses to “Birth Control Coverage

  1. Pat Reagin

    February 8, 2012 at 9:26 PM

    Hi Nick, I’ve tried not to read your blog lately as my blood pressure is pretty good and I’ve managed not to sweat the small stuff but this post is a bit much. What I happened to have read about this issue was that the church’s exclusion was due to sunset next year, hence the anger on the part of the Catholic church organization.

    The Catholic church is not unlike any other organization or state for that matter that doesn’t want the federal government telling it what to do. They are not telling their employees that they cannot take birth control, they are simply telling them that they won’t pay for it because they don’t believe it is morally right. This is within their Constitutional rights to believe just as it is the Constitutional right for Disney to allow their employees to include their gay lovers on their health insurance.

    Birth control (as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies) is not a medical necessity It is elective and therefore it should be at the discretion of the employer as to whether they will cover it under their health plans or not. Now for the other reasons you listed it may be necessary, and for those reasons, birth control is covered, even under the evil Catholic church’s health insurance plan. Being an elective treatment (as a means of preventing unwanted pregnancies) it falls under the same “non-covered” list as breast augmentation or gender re-assignment surgeries. Would you argue that those surgeries should be paid for by an employer’s health care insurance? Would you argue that the government should intervene on behalf of people who wish to have those surgeries and demand that health insurance plans cover them?

    As a member of this society I see the great value in birth control and feel that all health insurance plans should cover its cost 100%, regardless of whether it be for general health/well being or for the prevention of pregnancies. However just because I believe this (and 80+% of the rest of the country does too) does not mean that it should be forced on to an organization or employer who doesn’t agree.

    • Nick

      February 9, 2012 at 9:11 AM

      I hear the same arguments over and over again how these organizations, individuals, and states don’t want the government telling them what to do. Only to have those same organizations, individuals, and states turn around and fighting to have abortions outlawed. So it’s only okay for the government to tell other’s what to do when it agrees with those organizations or individuals higher valued morals, otherwise its evil “big” government. So what I end up hearing is, “Help, the government is attacking my religion and freedoms, let’s attack someone else’s instead.” These are the same folks who scream that this is a “Christian Nation” founded on Christian principles using it as justification for controlling other people’s lives. As Susan B. Anthony once wrote, “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

      I fully understand why these organizations are upset, I get it. However, the government is not forcing anyone to take birth control. The point is to make birth control readily accessible to everyone, even those that may not normally able to afford it. The choice, for whether or not they actually participate in utilizing it is still up to them. For someone that’s against social services I would have figured you’d see the benefit to this.

      Here’s how I see it, when women have access to low-cost or free birth control many of them will choose to take it, there’s more benefits to it than just preventing pregnancies. Imagine all of the unwanted pregnancies that occur among adults these days, what happens to those children? Their parents sometimes keep them, occasionally seeking monetary assistance from social services. Their parents sometimes give them up for adoption, too much of this and the system of orphanages can be overwhelmed. Or the final option, abortion, which if the religious right has their way, will no longer be an option, without endangering the life of the mother.

      Now, we could sit and argue about how these women should just abstain, but that’s not happening. We could say, well it’s their own damn fault for not practicing safe sex so they get what they deserve. Not only would that be callous and uncaring, but its ignoring the root of the problem. That unwanted child will potentially become a burden on the system or aborted, either of which are not preferred outcomes. We could also say, perhaps they should find a different employer that doesn’t have a problem funding birth control, but we all know that with the economy being what it is that that’s often easier said than done.

      The Constitution wasn’t written to preserve the rights of businesses and organizations, it was written to preserve the rights of the people. These organizations can piss and moan about their rights being infringed upon, but the fact still remains, their rights aren’t protected by the Constitution. The employees of these organizations will occasionally believe that birth control is completely acceptable, what about their freedom of religion, they’re access to something they believe to be morally acceptable is being controlled by another’s religion.

    • Nick

      February 9, 2012 at 12:18 PM

      Some food for thought in regards to your original comment.

      This situation is no different than when the government began restricting polygamy, something many of the Mormon faith believe in, using your argument this would be an attack on their freedom of religion. And what of animal sacrifices, something that is now illegal in the United States, but is part of some religion’s beliefs, could one not argue that outlawing the practice of animal sacrifices as an infringement on these religion’s rights?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: