In recent weeks, the nation has talked more about contraception than at any other time during my 58 years of life. Many Republican office holders and outspoken Catholic bishops call the discussion one of religious liberty.
For me, it is a matter of whom I trust. As the father of two young adults, I trust them to make thoughtful moral choices about contraception and sexuality far more than I trust John Boehner, Rick Santorum, or the (all male) parade of Catholic bishops.
My wife and I worked hard to raise our kids -- one son and one daughter. Anyone who knows us will recall it was joyous but definitely not always easy. We made mistakes. They made mistakes. And now out of college, they are great young adults. They have jobs. Working hard to make a difference in the lives of others. Great friends. And they are thoughtful about relationships. We could not be more proud.
I am delighted that the struggles of generations that came before them have meant that contraception is available to them and their romantic partners.
Why would any a parent wish otherwise?
One of the best features of the health reform law now slowly being implemented is that private insurance is required to cover -- at no additional cost -- certain key items of preventive health care. My company and hundreds of thousands of our activists -- advocated for the inclusion of contraception, and we were pleased when the Secretary of Health and Human Services agreed.
We fought to limit the number of employers and employees who would be discriminated against under a religious employer exemption, and were pleased when the Obama administration stuck to the principle of universal coverage. For there are literally hundreds of thousands of employees of many faiths and of no faiths who work in religious organizations.
But the Catholic bishops are not satisfied. They do not trust the employees of their own religious organizations to make faithful decisions. They would not trust my son or my daughter or their partners or friends. They want to make these decisions for them.
And now much of the Republican leadership -- such as Speaker John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader McConnell, and presidential candidates -- have taken up the challenge, and support legislation that would allow ANY organization to disallow coverage of any medical procedure or service that it asserts causes it moral qualms.
That is, Boehner, McConnell and their kin want to empower the largely male leadership of corporate America to join with the entirely male power structure of the Catholic hierarchy to decide whether contraception -- and much more -- is an available choice for the young adults of the country.
Why would I possibly trust these men to make responsible choices for my young adult children? Do they know them? Do they share their values?
While I am utterly appalled at the rhetoric spewing from the mouths of these mistrustful, power-hungry men, I am not surprised. These same men have opposed contraception for decades. Among the Supreme Court rulings they hope to eventually reverse is the pivotal case of Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a state could not outlaw the use of contraception, as Connecticut then did.
Who doubts that much of the Republican right long for the ability to outlaw contraception as part of its social agenda? Thousands of people have petitioned presidential candidate Romney to answer the question of whether he supports Griswold vs. Connecticut. Total silence has been the answer.
Much has been made of the right-wing assault on women, with attacks on reproductive rights, contraception and the very definition of rape. And there surely is such an assault.
But this assault is not solely on women, as all people -- single people, men and women, married people, socially active people, and parents -- have a fundamental interest in putting the decisions about the availability of contraception in the hands of those who make sexual choices, rather than the powerful men who seek to control them.
I say to Boehner, McConnell, the bishops, and all those who seek to control the young adults of our country, you have not earned my trust. My kids have. Back off and let them decide.
Note to Republicans: Contraception and Religious Freedom Are ...
Nancy Pelosi Rips GOP Over Birth Control: I May Be 'Moved To ...
Republicans Attack Obama Health Care Law With Birth Control Bills
Republicans Are Unprotected on Contraception: Jonathan Alter ...
Before current birth-control fight, Republicans backed mandates ...
America's problem is a lack of imagination about how healthcare should be provided.
You're in a circle of "it's part of the employment package, so the views of the employer are relevant".
Get over yourselves. Employers should pay their employees for the services they supply. From their pay the employees should pay into a national insurance fund, the proceeds of which are allocated by government, which is, and it's weird how Americans need reminding of this - "of the people, by the people and for the people".
Kieschnick rather foolishly accuses the bishops of wanting to "control the young people of our country". The bishops do not want that, they want to be able to run their own Catholic institutions, like schools, charities, and hospital, without undue government interference (in this case requiring them to pay for insurance-plans that violate their beliefs). It is not the bishops who are being controlling, it is Obama that is being controlling and overbearing.
Also Kieschnick makes it look like this is a partisan issue lead by republicans. In reality many prominent Democrats including Vice President Biden, Tim Kaine, Joe Lieberman, Bob Casey, Joe Manchin and Ben Nelson have come out against this mandate.
What about those that don't use birth control that the gov't mandates? Do they get that money instead?
I thought health insurance was for unexpected, catastrophic circumstances. Since when does birth control fit into that category? Car insurance is for accidents, Home insurance is for fires, floods, etc.
But health insurance is for....birth control? Does the person who engages in sex NOT responsible for his/her CHOICE to engage in the act? I feel this is another "freebie" the Dems are giving away to get elected.
The religious beliefs of the corporation does NOT dictate the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of the employee. The employee is free to get contraception on their own.
In the 25 years I have been in medicine, I have not seen this “slick procedures†you talk of. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen but, if it does, it is very, very rare.
You are right, it is not a freebie. Currently, most insurance premiums are priced without non-medically necessary contraception. Were it to be so, you would bear the cost of the mandated contraception in the form of increased insurance premiums. Are you willing to pay for college students having sex? If it is stated that your premium covers contraception in this manner, then go at it!!
Profit=earned premium+investment income-incurred loss-underwriting expenses.
Federally mandated contraception coverage for college students at $3000/year would be incurred loss. The company will increase premiums to compensate.
Finally, you haven’t stated where the Federal Gov’t gets its power to mandate this coverage.
2. In no way does the religious beliefs of the employer (most employers are not 'corporations') dictate the religious beliefs of the employee simply because the employer doesn't choose to pay for certain items or activities.
3. Granting your argument...why should the religious beliefs of the govt dictate the religious beliefs of its citizens?
NOBODY is saying they can't get contraceptives. NOBODY.
Yes indeed!
Incredible is not strong enough to describe the anomalies in all that.
You see...no one in the republican or religious camp is talking about limiting contraception. Nobody. Not one. Not any of the republican candidates for President. Not any of the current republican House or Senate members. Not any of the Catholic bishops. Not one.
Where is this strange argument coming from???
They are becoming political organizations and should be subject to all the tax laws and all the civil laws every organization is.
Are you aware that the President promised the Bishops in 2008 to exempt the Catholic Church from having to pay for contraceptives?
Are you aware that the President promised that again in December 2011?
Are you aware that women are completely free to purchase and use any contraceptive they want? Or to get any insurance plan that covers it? And that any Catholic can use it if they choose?
The Church only wants to maintain their religious freedom to 'not participate' in its use or promotion. Again...this was a position the President claimed to agree with even two months ago.
These politicians can't even govern as it is and now they want to intrude into our bedrooms? I don't think so. They want smaller government and to control reproductive issues too? This is a clear case of hypocrisy.
Republicans are completely out of touch with American society in 2012.
Do you understand that no one in the Republican party or any Catholic leader is talking about limiting contraception? Where have you heard that they are?
Not one republican candidate for President -- not one current republican House or Senate members -- not even one Catholic bishops -- NOT ONE -- is trying to make a single decision about reproductive rights. Not one.
The only only only only issue on the table is whether the executive branch of the federal govt can unilaterally force a religious organization to PAY for contraceptions when they have stood against it for thousands of years. That's it.
Where is this strange argument coming from???
The rationalization. Well, many women are potential victims of rape and incest. They would benefit greatly from owning a gun, using it for self-defense. These firearms could also be used for population control. Population sustainability is a growing national concern for everyone. In addition, every woman has a right earn as much money as a man. So, if children get in the way, pop. Problem solved.
So you see, to millions of people, there really is no difference between abortion drugs/services and a gun. Both are vehicles by which to destroy life. Ironically, a gun can be considered less destructive as it is more often used to feed a family(life sustaining) or for entertainment purposes.(Target shooting).
*cont'd*
When was the last time you watched a sharp shooter abortion competition?
Forget trying to convince decent, God fearing people that govt mandated, taxpayer funded, abortion drugs and services are moral. You may see it as a "woman's right", but they view it as absolutley sociopathic.
What would you like do to people who refuse to comply with these mandates? Lock them up? Take their homes? Confiscate their bank accounts? Eliminate them? To those of faith, these mandates are immoral and sociopathic. What part of that do you not understand? Many are willing die for their convictions.
I want no part of this. None.
That said, I stand with those who will not allow govt to trample on their basic and fundamental religious rights.