Catholic Bishops: Birth Control Is 'Ubiquitous And Inexpensive'

WASHINGTON -- As part of their intensely focused effort to repeal the Obama administration's new contraception coverage policy, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops released a manifesto of sorts on Wednesday, in which they assert that birth control is "ubiquitous and inexpensive."

"We wish to clarify what this debate is -- and is not -- about," the bishops said in the statement. "This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church's hand and with the Church's funds."

What the debate is about, according to the statement, is the "unjust and illegal" mandate that "would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception -- including abortifacient drugs."

The bishops' statement is somewhat misleading. The new federal rule does not cover any drug that causes an abortion. It does cover emergency contraception, which prevents pregnancy.

Birth control is also not "ubiquitous and inexpensive" for all women. A 2001 court case against Walmart provides one real-world example of the potential cost burden that millions of women could face if the government allowed employers to pick and choose which reproductive services their health plans covered. Lisa Smith Mauldin, a 22-year-old customer services manager and divorced mother of two earning $12 per hour, sued Walmart for sex discrimination because it excluded contraceptives from its prescription drug plan. She said the $30-per-month cost of birth control pills was a significant financial burden for her.

As to the religious liberty issue, under the new federal policy, no religious employers will be required to cover birth control against the teachings of their faith. Churches and other houses of worship are completely exempt from having to cover contraception. Other faith-based employers, such as a Catholic school or hospital, may opt out of paying for birth control insurance for their employees, although their insurance provider would then be required to provide the coverage at no cost to the women.

Nonetheless, the Catholic bishops have been relentless in their battle over the contraception rule, and a number of conservative lawmakers have taken their side. Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) wrote legislation that would allow any employer to refuse to cover any kind of health service for vaguely described "moral reasons." After that effort failed in the Senate, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) vowed to continue the fight in the House.

A few states have also joined the religious liberty/contraception debate. New Hampshire legislators recently voted to repeal the state's 12-year-old birth control insurance mandate, and Arizona lawmakers are considering a bill that would force some women seeking birth control for non-contraceptive medical reasons to prove that medical need to their employers before it would be covered in their health plans.

The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the primary political forces opposing the Catholic bishops on this issue, maintains that a woman's liberty should be prioritized over the moral beliefs of her employer.

"The Bishops have doubled-down on demands allowing employers to deny women coverage for contraception based on the employer's, not the woman's, personal beliefs," said ACLU policy counsel Sarah Lipton-Lubet. "A woman's health care needs are what is most important in this debate, and her rights to live her life according to her beliefs, and the freedom to not have someone else's imposed on her."

Comments

[cosmicdart]

04:47 AM on 03/24/2012

C'mon now! We all know the real reasons why wealthy Conservative Businessmen what to ditch birth control. There's no use in them hiding under the guise of religion anymore. The larger the population of the Earth, the more non-renewable resources it needs, and the wealthy 1% accumulate an enormous amount of wealth providing these resources for them. A small population could survive entirely on renewable resources that they provide for themselves. The wealthy 1% also need a large desperate supply of surplus labor to drive down the cost of labor. The 1% would need to share too much of its wealth with a smaller population who would want more compensation for the work that it does. They want our women to be automatic vending machines that supply surpluses of begging slave children on the cheap.

[livefreeorvoterepublican]

07:40 PM on 03/23/2012

any attorneys out there want to show me where the catholic church has greater rights than an individual...male or female...in the constitution? and why does the Catholic church still have tax exempt status since they are influencing legislation and intervening in campaigns? Are we looking for the "good old days" when Bishops were burning Huguenots at the stake? In God we Trust. I'm not Catholic, so I don't talk to Him thru the Pope, and I respect the rights of those who don't believe in God at all. Jesus did not win souls thru coersion, so what rule book is the extreme right using??

[LJ McManus]

11:32 AM on 03/23/2012

piratecapt: if I am reading the IRS publication 'tax guide for churches and religious organizations' correctly,' no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation' and they 'may not intervene in political campaigns.' Read the guide: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf. But of course conservatives would argue that it is not a 'substantial' part. I believe that you are misguided.

[piratecapt]

02:35 AM on 03/24/2012

Well many church's would welcome the IRS to take away their tax exempt status. Some churches are doing everything then can to get the IRS to take away their tax exempt status because they feel the gag rule on the church is unconstitutional. The IRS is afraid to take away their status cause they don't want to risk loosing the court battle. Right mow the IRS is having its way pretty much and so they wont risk a court battle cause they could loose and they know it.

[Snexas]

12:33 AM on 03/22/2012

Why are does the anti-birth control crowd act like using the birth control pill to prevent pregnancy is not a valid medical use? Do they not know that deaths from pregnancy and childbirth in the United States have doubled in the past 20 years? Do they not know that 1.7 million women a year (that's 1/3 of pregnant women in the United States) suffer from pregnancy-related complications? Do they not know that most of those deaths and complications occur in minorities and women living in poverty? More idiocy from the anti-science, anti-choice, anti-poor crowd.

Birth control is preventative care. It's just as much a medical use as many other types of preventative care, such as vaccines, dental cleanings, anti-malaria drugs, etc... Preventative care is the main view of modern medicine because it's obviously better to keep someone from having medical issues and it's certainly cheaper.

[piratecapt]

02:15 AM on 03/23/2012

A baby is not a disease. Contraception is used to prevent a pregnancy. Again, a baby is not a disease. The vast majority of people use the birth control pill simply to prevent a pregnancy which is not a disease. So the vast majority of the use of the birth control usage is not for health care. It is used to unnaturally interfere with nature. Who is the anti science crowd you speak of. God is the author of science. He created all things and through science we also come to know God and his beautiful creation. The Catholic Church has always been the greatest champion of science and this is now deeply believed and understood by all historians. You loose credibility when you make silly attacks on people who support nature and who don't support your anti nature view. People that understand the wrongfulness of contraception are not anti poor. Many of us are the poor and the rest of us work hard to help the poor in so many ways. Keep your hostility in check and defend your views with accurate statements instead of making up false ones.

[Walter Moss]

10:05 AM on 03/23/2012

Wait, so using contraceptives is "interfering with nature"? By your logic, any medical treatment (e.g. vaccination and the use of antibiotics) would be contrary to God's will. I suppose if we left it all in His hands, we'd be living to the ripe old age of 40, all the while infested with an assortment of parasites and chronic ailments.

[Snexas]

10:57 AM on 03/23/2012

I never said a baby was a disease. I said pregnancy can cause diseases & complications, which it does in 1/3 of all U.S. women who get pregnant. You seem to think that women should be pregnant all the time and which would increase the number of women who suffer those illnesses. Preventing pregnancies by taking the birth control pill is medicine and saves women's lives every day.

It is hysterical that you can't see the irony in your following statement, "It is used to unnaturally interfere with nature. Who is the anti science crowd you speak of." Your first sentence implies that birth control unnaturally interferes with nature and then you ask who the anti-science crowd is. The anti-science crowd is YOU!

We use science all the time to interfere with nature. Have you ever taken antibiotics? Have you ever had a vaccine? Have you ever had a surgery? Geez, in your world I guess we should just throw out the entire field of medicine because it interferes with nature. If you want to die a short nasty death, then go right ahead, but not me.

[LJ McManus]

07:51 PM on 03/20/2012

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are directly influencing American politics. Why then are they still tax-exempt?

[Asmondius]

02:28 AM on 03/21/2012

Obviously, if they are directly influencing American politics they control the IRS.

[piratecapt]

02:09 AM on 03/23/2012

Because being given the tax exempt status does not prohibit them from doing so. You are simply misguided in your understanding in this area. You may wish that churches didn't have this authority from our constitution but the framers of our constitution did not wish to deny churches their voice on the values that they hold so dearly. As long as they don't preach on which candidate or party by name to support or be against they they are legal. They are free to fight for or against laws and for the values that they believe in and keep their tax exempt status. Hope this helps you and others be better informed on this issue.

[marymeade2]

11:11 PM on 03/18/2012

This is where our country is? Birth Control? Arguing over Birth Control? It's absolutely stupid. What in the heck is going on here? A country of over 300 million people and our major concern is Birth Control and who is going to pay for it? Please vote these people out of office. If we are to survive as a republic, we must get the democrats out of office. This is ludicrous and yet, here we are on a daily basis arguing this, and legislating this! Does anyone else find this idiotic?

[Asmondius]

02:30 AM on 03/21/2012

It's a vote getter.

Used to be that Democrats kissed babies to get elected.

Now they advertise preventing babies.

Welcome to the 21st century.

[piratecapt]

02:42 AM on 03/23/2012

We can't solve our problems if we don't understand the cause and effects following and not following these laws. We need more people to wake up and understand these things. Wake up my friend and take a look in mirror and see the connection and work to bring our country back to the natural order that our creator designed it to be. Then God will one again bless America with abundant blessings and graces.

[piratecapt]

02:42 AM on 03/23/2012

Well maybe it's not as stupid as it seems at first glance. Maybe this is what God wants us to talk about and face. A case a be made that un-natural birth control has lead our country into the horrible mess we are in. Many of us can see the connection but we understand that most can't or don't want to try. For those that still believe in God, its a lot easier to see the connection. There are even many atheists that can see the connection as well as a result of their deep respect and understanding of nature and the consequences of fighting it. The birth control pill ushered in the the culture of selfish sex without consequences or commitment. An era of sex outside of marriage. A culture of sex for fun only. The divorce rate then sky rocketed and now half of all children are born out of wedlock. Most countries don't even reproduce to maintain their current population. If not for the illegals and other immigrants, our nation's population would already be decreasing everyday. Our social security and other programs were based on reproduction rates behaving in accordance with nature. There are laws of physics and laws of economics and there are laws of God. They all have negative outcomes when they are not followed.

[marymeade2]

10:40 AM on 03/24/2012

I found your reply very interesting, thank you.

[MightyYowp]

02:10 PM on 03/18/2012

Is the problem that pills cost $30 a month or that Walmart doesn;t pay it's employees well enough?
Eyes on the prize people!

[rickvan]

11:27 PM on 03/17/2012

Your article says: “The bishops' statement is somewhat misleading. The new federal rule does not cover any drug that causes an abortion." But one drug approved by the FDA as an emergency contraceptive (thus included in the new mandate) is “Ella” (ulipristal acetate or HRP 2000), a close analogue to the abortion drug RU-486 (mifepristone). It can prevent implantation of a new embryo, and disrupt an already implanted pregnancy by blocking progesterone. See: A. Tarantal, et al., 54 Contraception 107-115 (1996), at 114 (“studies with mifepristone and HRP 2000 have shown both antiprogestins to have roughly comparable activity in terminating pregnancy when administered during the early stages of gestation”); G. Bernagiano & H. von Hertzen, 375 The Lancet 527-28 (Feb. 13, 2010), at 527 (“Ulipristal has similar biological effects to mifepristone, the antiprogestin used in medical abortion”); European Medicines Agency, Evaluation of Medicines for Human Use: CHMP Assessment for Ellaone (2009), at 8 (“Ulipristal acetate prevents progesterone from occupying its receptor, thus the gene transcription normally turned on by progesterone is blocked, and the proteins necessary to begin and maintain pregnancy are not synthesized”) and 16 (in animal tests “ulipristal acetate is embryotoxic at low doses”), available at www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/001027/WC500023673.pdf . If the FDA approves RU-486 in the future as an “emergency contraceptive,” as the World Health Organization has, that drug too will automatically be included in the mandate.

[l78lancer]

10:53 PM on 03/17/2012

""We wish to clarify what this debate is -- and is not -- about," the bishops said in the statement."
--------------------------------------------------->

There is no debate beause it is over. It has been over for two generations.

[pathologiq]

10:40 PM on 03/17/2012

Why exactly are Catholic Bishops being consulted on a healthcare issue?

There are religions that believe that there should be no medical interventions whatsoever - should these people be exempt from providing any sort of health care? Considering these Bishops do not live with women, work with women on equal footing or have sex period, it seems silly that they're trying to get their horse in the race.

This is a medical issue. Whether people use it for contraception is none of their damn business - it doesn't use their money, or taxpayer money, it uses insurers money. And if they don't like it? Well, sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you have government funded institutions like hospitals or schools, those are not a places of worship. Those are publicly funded institutions, subject to public policy.

Believers, don't take advantage of something you don't believe in. That's your right.
Preventing other people from using something you don't believe in? Sorry, not your choice.

[williamwilliam2]

08:45 PM on 03/18/2012

The insurers agree to provide a health plan that fits the Catholic church's request, and has done so for 40 years. Why is the freedom to do this now attempted to be removed?

[pathologiq]

06:04 PM on 03/19/2012

Because they've decided that health plans should fit the requests of everyday citizens, and if Ms. Fluke's testimony would have been heard, you would know the requests of the Catholic Church have cost at least one woman her fertility. In attempting to regulate her sex life, the Georgetown faculty cost a student her ovary. How many women need to have permanent harm come to their physical and emotional well being before it becomes clear that churches and courts do not replace relevant doctorates?

Priests and politicians are not doctors.

[Asmondius]

02:32 AM on 03/21/2012

Hint - November election for an incumbant President in a bad economy.

[Asmondius]

02:31 AM on 03/21/2012

Catholic employers purchase the health care policy - it certainly is their money.

[livefreeorvoterepublican]

07:51 PM on 03/23/2012

so everyone can pick and choose what they will pay for after a plan has been implemented by law? should you be able to only send money that does (or doesnt) go toward the military, or education, etc? if catholics don't choose to use birth control, great. what they utilize (or don't utilize) should be between the employee and their doctor. the Pope doesn't rule here

[BartStratton]

06:48 PM on 03/17/2012

Birth control is ubiquitous and inexpensive...so we'd like to make it hard to get and costly.

[Julie Preik]

11:20 PM on 03/17/2012

This is not about anyone being "forced to pay for it". If you would just bother to read the actual language, the regulation requires the INSURANCE COMPANY, not the employer, to assume these costs. And insurance companies love it -- why? Because paying for birth control is far, far cheaper than paying for either abortion or the whole prenatal care/childbirth/baby care package.

[anelore]

05:02 PM on 03/17/2012

What amazes me is that the subject of children of the employee might also be given birth control hasn't been raised in this debate. A large argument is to just let the employee pay out of pocket, it isn't THAT expensive. The employee, a male, lets say, wants birth control prescription coverage for his wife, and two daughters, 16 and 17 yrs old. So far we have a total of 3 birth control prescriptions a month. This can become a financial burden that some people aren't able to incur.

[Bike Commuter]

05:51 PM on 03/17/2012

Cue the people claiming that teenagers shouldn't be taking it.

Cue my response that most teenagers 15-19 (82%) use oral contraceptives at least partly for non-conraceptive purposes (it is commonly used to control acne, regulate periods, and treat PMS.

[l78lancer]

12:53 AM on 03/18/2012

And to treat migranes in teens.

Execellent response.

[Asmondius]

02:35 AM on 03/21/2012

'Most'?

14% of females taking contraceptives do so for purposes other than contraception.

[l78lancer]

01:19 AM on 03/18/2012

One of the reasons may be that in some states after age 14 teens can receive contraception without parental consent. In other states (like California) teens of any age can receive it without parental permission. So if the local Planned Parenthood hasn't been closed due to defunding, they can go there. Of course PP is public enemy number one of the GOP.

But I raised the issue, too, because if a single dad is raising teen girls and they have health related issues, or if he wants them to have it as a precautionary measure as a single parent, he shouldn't have to travel a surreptitous route to provide his daughters what they need.

Backwards thinking makes this completely a sex issue when actually it is far and away an issue of protecting the family's health and wellbeing.

[maddog191]

05:59 PM on 03/18/2012

By surreptitious, do you mean actually forking over the $30 per month? Or $4 per month at Walmart?

[Asmondius]

02:37 AM on 03/21/2012

How does a 15-year old girl on contraceptives protect the well being of her father, brothers , and grandmother?

[cskirk]

04:41 PM on 03/17/2012

The latest news of Obamacare's impact came from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week. In one of the CBO's reported scenarios, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won't come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.

Polling data shows the extent of the opposition. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor repeal, more than half of Americanssay that the Supreme Court should strike down the mandate, 57 percent believe religious-affiliated employers should be exempt from the law's anti-conscience mandate, 51 percent support a religious and moral exemption for all employers, and 60 percent of physicians believe the law will have a negative impact on overall patient care.

[cosmicdart]

07:13 AM on 03/18/2012

But should they strike down Obama Care, they will find the Alternative Status Quo much more expensive in the long run. If you want a see a drastic increase in our National Debt, then strike down Obama Care. Obama Care was a solution for a big bad problem that will still be with us should we strike it down. Don't look at Obama Care as the expense that it is , but rather as the expense that it's preventing.

[cskirk]

10:29 PM on 03/18/2012

Could you be more upside down? An additional 3 trillion dollars is cheaper, who you kidding DA? You obviously have not read it nor studied the implications of it. So who is the dummy cosmic? Get educated before you post inane responses.

[livefreeorvoterepublican]

08:00 PM on 03/23/2012

probably why our forefathers wrote protections into the system so that we don't have mob rule...because they didn't trust the uninformed, uneducated and hysterical masses.

[cosmicdart]

03:20 PM on 03/17/2012

The employees of a Catholic Institution as a Collective should be allowed to purchase the Group Health Insurance policy, and not the Employer. This should solve the problem since the Catholic Institution would have nothing to do with it.

[Yvette67]

03:57 PM on 03/17/2012

Maybe there ought to be a law - that all people who oppose birth control MUST ADOPT one unwanted child regardless of the child's race, sex, physical or mental ability, and age -
The child must receive the basics of love, discipline, food, clothing, shelter, education, and health insurance

[k64]

08:38 PM on 03/17/2012

right on!!

[PantsOnTruth]

12:54 AM on 03/18/2012

ABSOLUTELY!! Unless the religious woman-hateres are 100% ready to take in EVERY SINGLE CHILD in this country that isn't adequately being taken care of (and I mean every single one, even if that means each couple has 30 children), they need to keep their mouths shut. They scream and cry about an implanted/non implanted embryo, but then think that once the baby is born the mother is going to be magically willing and/or able to take care of it, giving no consideration the quality of life that baby will have outside of the womb.

And let me give you a hint: most likely, if a woman prevented a pregnancy, that means she didn't want a baby. Women that don't want babies might not be the best mother once it's born, for an infinite number of reasons.

I, for one, am a leftist liberal who also believes that birth control pills are not good for a woman's body or the environment, but millions + babies born every year that nobody can or will take care of (but were forced to be born by you Catholic jerks) will do much more damage (to both the woman's body AND the environment).

[Yvette67]

08:48 PM on 03/17/2012

sound thinking - has this been recomended by anyone

[lrobb]

02:59 PM on 03/17/2012

The entire controversy would evaporate if we didn't get our health insurance from our employers. The concept is byzantine to start with, and only exists because the Wage/Price Administration in WWII prevented employers from giving raises. Inertia has prevented us from moving into the 21st century every since.

How would you like to get your auto or homeowner's insurance through your employer? Leaving aside insurance, how would you like to get your utilities through your employer? Both make about as much sense as health insurance.

Employers are in the business of whatever it is they make or service they provide which they understand and do well. Anything else they probably do very badly, including investing employees' savings. I have yet to see the first employee health insurance plan that works for every employee of a company.

We need the freedom to purchase whatever health insurance policy suits our family best at the lowest possible price. Frankly, I want whatever it is people who can access the Mayo Clinic get.

[Asmondius]

02:39 AM on 03/21/2012

The only ultimate way out for everyone.

[livefreeorvoterepublican]

07:58 PM on 03/23/2012

you cant buy collision coverage for your car after the car wreck and expect to get paid, which is how many choose to buy health insurance under the old system (for that matter, many expect free coverage for big ticket items like accidents and cancer without paying anything under the old system....). for the system to work, we gotta get everyone into the system.