Critics Get It Wrong on Contraceptive Coverage

Opponents of the recent contraceptive coverage announcement by the Department of Health & Human Services are trying to twist this major advance on contraception into a fight about abortion. In the Washington Post, Michael Gerson states that the rule requires Catholic-affiliated organizations to provide insurance coverage for "abortifacients." CNN's Belief Blog claims the new rule "forces employers to cover contraception and abortion." While both advance several faulty arguments, it's time to put to rest the claim about abortion. The rule is directly and explicitly limited to FDA-approved contraception.

Opponents of contraception repeatedly try to switch the debate to abortion, claiming that contraceptives are abortifacients despite medical and scientific judgment to the contrary. One prime example is Plan B, the commercially marketed emergency contraceptive, used as morning-after birth control, not an abortifacient. It's instructive that even the Catholic Health Care Association, whose four-part special report in the January-February 2010 edition of Catholic Health Progress addressed the ethics of providing emergency contraception to rape survivors in hospital emergency rooms, subtitled one of the articles (pdf) plainly: "Science shows [Plan B] is not an abortifacient."

Likewise, the FDA has approved other formulations, most recently Ella, as emergency contraception because they cannot disrupt an established pregnancy. The Catholic hierarchy, which consistently opposes all contraception, has opposed the FDA new rule on contraceptive coverage for all women, with or without a religious exemption, but let's not muddy the water with erroneous claims that the FDA decision required abortion coverage.

 

Follow Marcia D. Greenberger on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@nwlc

Comments

[lcr999]

03:27 PM on 02/07/2012

First of all, it is important to note that we are not talking about Churches, we are talking about Church related institutions (schools and hospitals) that both serve a broader population and employ a broader population.

This argument is about what level of coverage an EMPLOYER must give to its Employees. Nothing more..

When couched in terms of Birth control it is very divisive as it brings in all sorts of other baggage. But to put it in a different context, there are significant religious denominations that do not believe in blood transfusions and would on the same grounds object to paying for not only blood transfusions but any surgery involving blood transfusions. So couched in those terms, would it be acceptable for those employers to offer insurance that did not cover blood? Most people would answer no I think. For that matter, would we grand a license to a hospital or doctor that refused on religious grounds to use blood transfusions. Similarly no.

[dillingham]

07:54 PM on 02/02/2012

This is the way it's covered in our local news....

"A new government policy forces employers, including religiously affiliated schools and hospitals to cover FDA approved contraceptives, including abortion."

http://www.connecttristates.com/news/story.aspx?id=714958

[Diana Semlear]

12:58 PM on 02/02/2012

Even though I believe every life is precious, I also believe that a woman has a right to be precious too. She should be able to choose when to be a mother, and if a mistake occurs, there has to be a way she can live her life, go to college, have a career before she chooses to have children, or not. Biology has forced women to make a heartrending decision when they can't be a mother or if they are not ready. We need to exercise compassion for women, not take their freedom away.

[Lea Markowski]

04:04 PM on 02/01/2012

In addition, many religious affiliated/conservative organizations that previously covered Contraceptives as part of their provided health insurance package for many years, have eliminated Contraceptive coverage within the past week in order to appease the Catholic hierarchy.