Contraception is widely used by most women, including 98% of Catholic women. But when the Obama administration announced in late January that all health insurance plans must provide contraception free of charge, some commentators charged that the Obama administration was throwing Catholics under the bus. This rule applies to health insurance that religiously-affiliated colleges and universities provide to students. While many people share the goal of preventing unintended pregnancies, there is strong support on the part of religiously-affiliated institutions for an exemption from the new requirement.
Last month, the Obama administration announced that it will require religious institutions to abide by the rule, and it would give them one year to implement it. The Obama administration made the right decision in requiring health plans to provide contraception to women free of charge.
Most, if not all, colleges and universities offer health insurance to their students. But many Catholic colleges and universities do not provide contraception to students through their health insurance plans. Some women have stopped using contraception because they were not able to afford the co-pays. This is dangerous for women’s health, and the Obama administration should be applauded for helping to meet the health care needs of college women.
Just to be clear, this new rule has nothing to do with abortion. In fact, the new rule will likely decrease abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies in the first place. While some religious groups praised the change, the new rules have riled some religious institutions. One conservative Christian institution has already filed a case against the Obama administration seeking an injunction against the new regulations. Such an injunction would be bad for students, and a sad demonstration of some institutions’ willingness to put ideology ahead of the health and safety of their students.
While some universities may think that providing access to contraception condones the sexual behavior of its students, not providing women with access to contraception is merely pretending that that college students are not having sex. This is not only demonstrably false, it calls into question the reality in which administrators live. Nearly 80% of college students are sexually active. Colleges and universities cannot expect that their failure to provide their students with contraception will mean that their students simply will not have sex. To turn a blind eye to the students’ lives, and to put a barrier between the students and their ability to protect themselves from unintended pregnancies is destructive.
Georgetown University, a Jesuit institution that has always been more moderate than many Catholic institutions in the United States, has announced that it will comply with the new rule. Fordham University, on the other hand, has told women that it refuses to cover contraception because the use of contraception is out of line with the school’s religious beliefs. It has even balked at providing contraception for students who require it for medical reasons that have nothing to do with sexual intercourse.
In the year that the Pill turned 50, and nearly 50 years since the Supreme Court invalidated a law that prohibited the use of contraception in Griswold v. Connecticut, it is high time women have more complete access to health care that will provide them with the liberty to make choices. Some commentators have argued that the administration should have allowed a religious exemption, that Obama is now in trouble politically with Catholics. This decision may not be good politics in the eyes of some commentators. But it is good policy. Women’s health decisions should be made on the basis of medical merit, not politics.
The Affordable Care Act now makes contraception affordable. This decision is not only good for women’s health, but it encourages college students to make responsible decisions and will help to prevent unintended pregnancies. The Obama administration should be applauded for taking a courageous step in the right direction for women’s health.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
The Discussion
After reading the lengthy discussion, I find 1 argument for this policy that is compelling to me: equal access. If the Catholic hospitals don’t provide contraceptives, it is easier for men to find alternative sources, especially since the pill must be prescribed.
1 Replies
For the sake of argument, what if Congress passed a law saying hospitals and universities could no longer have religious symbols on the premises? No more crucifix in the class room.
Wouldn't the same logic dictate that this would be permissible? If not, why?
12 Replies
11 Replies
5 Replies
3 Replies
More to your point about Georgetown University providing no-copay contraceptives, in MA (1 of 28 states that have contraceptive equity laws)
Boston College,
the six former Caritas Christi Catholic hospitals in MA, and other
Catholic organizations
could have self-insured or stopped offering prescription drug coverage to avoid the mandate--but they didn’t.
Instead, they--like many Catholic hospitals and health care insurers around the country--chose to meet the needs of the overwhelming majority of Catholic women and offer these much needed services.
3 Replies
Many people have commented that the RCC should not be "forced" to offer this coverage, and individuals wanting it should look elsewhere. Religious freedom should not beget business ventures that limit reasonable choice. Maybe the Church should avoid it and just get out of the healthcare industry.
8 Replies
7 Replies
6 Replies
I love how there is this assumption that no one can do anything without the government's approval or at its insistence - or that there is no such thing as a condom or contraceptive foam available at every drug store or grocery store, or if it's just condoms, gas station and bar in America. Oh! And the picture shows the pill, which provides no protection against STDs and can kill some women who take it with blood clots and strokes. The pill, the favorite of guys who don't like condoms, and abortions, favorites of married men and boyfriends who don't want the responsibility of a baby. Like, nobody who works for a Catholic organization could EVER possibly provide themselves with contraception or protection against STDs without the government.
67 Replies
33 Replies
13 Replies
17 Replies
27 Replies
15 Replies
10 Replies
4 Replies
3 Replies
Thanks for articulating this. When I saw Shields AND Brooks agreeing that this was a horrible mistake by Obama, I began to question it and listen to the Zeitgeist and found that all of this rabble rousing is a result again of journalists not reading legislation, but listening to think tanks and news aggregators.
Some Catholic colleges do provide contraception for employees, many of whom are not Catholic. So there the debate should really lie. Obama wins again, Santorum did just inform us that he thinks he is smarter than us. It's a political football and a boon for Santorum w/ his base, not be an Obama disaster.
As a recovering Irish Catholic with that engrained and lingering self-loathing, trust me, our people need contraception...
Great job on the article; I couldn't agree more that the Obama Administration should be commended for their actions. Religious doctrine is obviously far different from the law. Saying that woman should not expect contraception at a religious college is in the same vein of saying gays shouldn't marry. Just because the church doesn't agree with it, doesn't mean people shouldn't have the right to do so (the right to marry a person of the same sex, or have access to contraception at college)- whenever and wherever. Happenstance, I'm going to be a freshman next year at GU and I can honestly say this just makes me doubly proud to be going there.
This account has been disabled.
Sometimes, the "men in red hats" are wrong. The church must change and get with the times.
31 Replies
17 Replies
15 Replies
12 Replies
11 Replies
Things always get sketchy when people say they have a "right" to something. The issue is not whether contraceptions should be legal, it isn't even about preventing women from purchasing these things from outside suppliers, but what we have here is the attempt to force a Catholic institution to supply a product that they deem is in violation of their religious code. Imagine if the Federal Government forced jewish and muslim private schools to sell pork in their cafeterias, the left would be crying out against this religious bigotry. However, because we are attacking a Christian organization, well I guess that's just kosher for this White House.
10 Replies
4 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
1 Replies
A majority of Catholics voted for Obama the first time around. They won't make the same mistake twice. There are more than 70 million Catholics in this country, and many are very upset with this decision. I see tonight the White House may be looking for a compromise; looks they're feeling the heat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/contraception-rule-compromise-white-house-bungling/2012/02/07/gIQA5wDFxQ_blog.html
7 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
I am in favor of access to contraception, and on one hand I do believe that colleges should be supportive of women's health in this way. But on the other hand, it is interfering for the government to require private institutions (that are Catholic) to submit to a secular ideal. Since those are private institutions, they should be able to make decisions. Nobody's forced to go to a given college, and so a Catholic institution is not automatically forcing Catholicism upon everyone else. It's a choice to attend such schools, and it's a choice for those schools when it comes to their policies.
10 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
6 Replies
4 Replies
In my first year of residence our floor fellows always had condoms for "emergency purposes" and pretty much every orientation event we attended there was something to do with visit the clinic and get "educated" on how to have safe sex. I don't see how this is any different ...
6 Replies
5 Replies
1 Replies
1 Replies
This is great news! I'm not sure why discussion of contraceptives is always coupled with separation of church and state. Providing free contraceptives doesn't mean a. women are forced to use them or b. that it will increase the likelihood of sex. College student are having sex regardless. This just gives women the opportunity to choose contraceptives if they want to but can't afford them. Just because something is being offered doesn't mean individuals must partake in it. The Affordable Care Act does not infringe on religious obligations because it doesn't require the use of contraceptives.
8 Replies
6 Replies
2 Replies
2 Replies
Since when does anyone owe anybody anything in the private sector. Liberty is the minimum presence of coercion and tyranny is the maximum presence of coercion.
I think the government should pay for my motorcycle insurance because me and my motorcycle friends pay higher insurance because of it. If they aren't going to pay for it they should force my employer to pay for it.
Thats a good way to stifle job creation.
6 Replies
5 Replies
3 Replies
I wish more women would comment on this topic. Hearing only from men is not very satisfying.
11 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
6 Replies
5 Replies
"the Obama administration announced that it will require religious institutions to abide by the rule"
It stinks right there. Separation of religion and government goes both ways. How do you people stand up for rights of minorities and then not stand up for what has now become a minority in Catholics. Hypocrites is the only way to explain it. Obama is one of the biggest hypocrites alive.
The Supreme Court has long recognized a First Amendment right for religious organizations to control their own internal affairs. Obama is always doing things the wrong way on purpose. In this instance, if it was required by all insurers to include coverage in all policies written then that is legal. To tell anything to the church is crossing a line.
9 Replies
7 Replies
6 Replies
Georgetown is an excellent school and are on the right side of this issue. The RCC bishops are wrong on this issue just like they were wrong on pedophiles! The Catholic bishops do not speak for Catholics like me that fully support no-copay contraceptive coverage and 77% of RCC women agree with me. The ruling doesn't apply to organizations directly involved in worship and is forcing no one to use BC. Additionally, the ruling applies to all religions, not just RCC. The courts have always overruled the RCC when it has sued to be exempt them from state's contraception equity laws and SCOTUS has refused to hear an appeal b/c there are people who work for religious organizations that aren't RC. It's ridiculous to argue that women who work -CNP
2 Replies
1 Replies
Btw, birth control pills don't prevent STD's (an epidemic in this country). Maybe if the pill wasn't given out like candy, these young women would be buying a condom at the local drug store for a fraction of the cost, and protecting themselves from STD's.
First let me say that I'm very much pro-choice. This will mark the first time I have ever argued in favor of limiting the choices of women.
Having said that, I am forced to disagree with this article. The state has no business telling religious entities what they must do for their congregations. Religious freedom is religious freedom. I've heard it said that in a free country, everyone has the right to be as stupid as they wish. This would qualify as one of those times.
If birth control is important to a woman going to college, then by all means she should go to a college that provides it. If she chooses to go to a religious college then she should probably observe the religious tenets they teach. Despite his heart being in the right place, Obama has no business forcing contraception on these colleges. A religious exemption is the right path.
29 Replies
13 Replies
5 Replies
6 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
3 Replies
2 Replies
I agree contraception should be available but not sure it should be paid for by the Catholic church
4 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies
Mr. Zaid, I disagree. The state has already intruded too much in religion's business. Only because the West is all corrupt (at least from the Christian vantage point) doesn't mean that religions should join the secular trend. It's a complete abuse from the government.
If women want to receive the pills as part of their students health insurance, well, don't go to Catholic schools. It was their personal decision to go to those institutions. What you will accomplish is a policy of restricting admission. The Catholic Church's business is their people's spiritual health. This is most essential, and it is what you secularists don't understand! Women's body health is under their own responsibility, not the Church. The world is going crazy!
2 Replies
So now it's good government policy to force religious entities to ignore their deeply held religious beliefs? What a wonderful world we live in. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their collective graves.
If you think this isn't going to hurt Obama in 2012; you're sadly mistaken. Catholics are outraged; and rightly so.
17 Replies
13 Replies
12 Replies
2 Replies
1 Replies