In what was called an “accommodation” Obama made it clear in a February 10 press conference that all women would have access to free contraceptives but offered through their insurance companies and not through the institutions that employ them which may be affiliated with the Catholic Church that opposes contraception. It would be a shame if this explanation is interpreted as Obama on the defensive, having stepped back from “making a mistake.”
Defensiveness in this case is entirely inappropriate. It is no shame to work to expand the availability of contraception. On the contrary it’s a goal to be proud of. An Institute of Medicine report recommended a major expansion of birth control services to women. Women with unintended pregnancies account for almost half of pregnancies in the U.S., and those women are more likely to smoke, consume alcohol, be depressed and experience domestic violence. The IOM also said that expanding birth control services to women will cut down on the number of abortions and make women healthier. To be for contraception is to be pro life.
There was an outcry from the Catholic hierarchy against Obama’s plan to make cost-free contraception available to all. If contraception is good for women and children there ought to be an outcry from the other side, those who want to attack global poverty, decrease infant and maternal mortality, and strengthen families and women’s self determination.
Jill Warren, executive director, Methodist Federation for Social Action said it best, when interviewed on the PBS Newshour February 9: ”Contraception, controlling whether you can plan your family, whether you can space your children, whether you want to have children, is a basic health issue. It’s a biological fact that women can be impregnated, and against our will, I might add. So it absolutely is a health issue…for me, the policy is just good public policy for the common good.” Warren also said “barriers to education, barriers to the work force all center around whether you can control your own reproductive health.” In other words working against the availability of contraception is also an issue of discrimination.
The original Obama plan was not a violation of religious liberty. No one was being urged, let alone compelled, to violate their beliefs and purchase contraceptives. On the contrary, it is the (heavily government subsidized) private sector religious institutions that seek to impose their will. When the Catholic hierarchy talks about the suppression of religious liberty it is talking about institutions, not individuals, claiming that their religious freedom is being violated (is this like the personhood of corporations as funders?).
These institutions are powerful. The fifth national survey of American Catholics appeared in National Catholic Reporter on October 28, 2011; a major finding was that Catholics of all generations, and both sexes, have consistently said in five surveys during the past 25 years that they do not see the bishops as the proper locus of moral authority on the matter of the use of contraception. Rather they believe that their conscience should be the proper locus. Only 11% look to the bishops. One Catholic theologian Daniel Mcguire cautions however not to underestimate that 11%: “the bishops have a terrific amount of scare power for politicians.” They have found an issue for their battle in Obama’s birth control decision. Non-Catholics are being told to stay away from the issue. Michael Sean Winters, also in National Catholic Reporter (NYT, 2/10/12), said, “no matter what people think about contraception, that’s an internal Catholic debate. Catholics do not like interlopers.”
To say that non-Catholics should leave the issue alone is not an acceptable position. The Catholic Church cannot arrogate to itself the right to decide this issue “internally” while in the meantime urging on politicians to come down hard on the anti-contraception side. The community as a whole (America) should not facilitate a particular hierarchy imposing its views, even on its own members, especially when those views offend the moral convictions of large numbers of other Americans.
February 18, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Excellent article.
February 19, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Cheers to Lisa Miller for her excellent column in the Saturday, February 18 Washington Post – Metro Section, page 2.
Also at washingtonpost.com/onfaith
February 21, 2012 at 2:41 pm
The standard set in our Constitution requires a neutral position in regards to religion. Our government will not favor nor discriminate against any religion. I have trouble putting church affiliated businesses under this protection. These are very large employers. 750,000 men and women are employed by church affiliated health systems and facilities. Many more thousands are employed by church affiliated colleges and universities.
I admire Pres. Obama’s compromise. He acted without ego. He felt the sensibilities of the church were worth consideration but he could not abandon the equal treatment of women or sacrifice their health care.
One question remains in my mind. How far does this consideration go? Is there an exemption for criminal fines? From labor laws? From paying taxes on other business income? Should there be an exemption from SEC rules for church affiliated financial and brokerage services? Where is the line? And might present lines be redrawn by the sitting U.S.Supreme Court?
February 23, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Well said – thanks! Statement deserves wide exposure.
March 1, 2012 at 2:20 pm
The women who are going to let this slide past can have no idea at all of what it was like as a working mother in the 1970s, and to be refused a job on the grounds of “you might get pregnant”. I DO know what it was like. Been there. Such a thing is inconceivable today, but so is any bill that would curtail our rights and remove our ability to make our own decisions about our bodies.
March 4, 2012 at 5:51 pm
An outstanding article with which I completely agree. When 7 billion, soon to be 9 billion people hoping to live affluent lifestyles on one planet Earth, the future viability of our planet is under threat. To be against contraceptives when we need to keep our numbers down is to be extremely shortsighted and unpatriotic, in a worldwide sense. May the Catholic hierarchy, men without wives and families, soon reassess their position on contraception for the future benefit of planet Earth.
March 7, 2012 at 10:21 pm
I feel strongly that the only way to effectively demonstrate the two sides of the issue is to offer legislation similar to the following: http://ninaturner.org/iNAMiX/content/senator-turner-introduces-legislation-protect-men%E2%80%99s-health . Senator Turner has finally, in one simple and effective way, demonstrated how ridiculous it is to impose regulations on women’s contraceptive use.