Birth control matters to women. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. But you wouldn't know it reading political coverage of the administration's decision to do the right thing and approve the rule mandating coverage of it.
And frankly, that's shameful.
When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius first announced the final rule making clear that contraception would be covered under health reform, not a single network saw fit to cover it in its nightly news. Every single network did, however, find time to cover the President's rendition of Al Green at the Apollo.
Just about every organization that works on behalf of women's rights commented on the decision, contacted the press about the impact the decision would have on women, and spent an enormous amount of time and energy promoting the news on social networks. But it was only when Catholic bishops came out to denounce the decision that coverage of contraception began to break out beyond the perfunctory write-ups that accompany every executive action.
The fact that the outrage of a relatively small number of men warranted so much more attention than the benefits to tens of millions of women is disgraceful.
Now we see that the story has made the big time. It was leaked to Politico that birth control is getting a whole op ed in the Washington Post. No longer is this debate concerning tens of millions of women limited to the outrage of conservative male Catholics denouncing Sebelius' decision -- now it has been expanded to include the outrage of a liberal male Catholic.
According to E.J. Dionne, Obama "utterly botched" this decision. He goes on to question the political wisdom of not working harder to accommodate the religious right.
Oh, man. OK, so one important thing to know is that the rule does exempt churches and religious organizations who primarily employ people of their faith from having to comply. But let's review a few other pertinent -- to women -- facts that you won't find in his piece or any of the pieces run on this important rule.
Between 2000 and 2008, 36 MILLION women were sexually active, of child bearing age, and did not wish to become pregnant. 17.4 million of them have incomes below 250% of the federal poverty line or are under the age of 20.
What does this mean? Let's break it down another way. Technically, the poverty line in the US for a four person family is $22,350. That's $1,862.50/month. Nearly half of the women previously mentioned in the "sexually active, but not interested in having children" bucket fall below that poverty line. Having an infrastructure that forces a woman to pay up to $50/month for contraception in that budget is a huge burden on families.
What about religious women? Well, 69% of women of all religious denominations who don't want to get pregnant use birth control, including 68% of Catholic women, 73% of mainline Protestants, and 74% of Evangelicals. And birth control is a lot more than contraception for women -- 58% of us use it to manage other medical issues like endometriosis or menstrual disorders.
Today, 1 in 3 women has trouble affording birth control. The U.S. has one of the highest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the industrialized world, and studies show that women who plan their pregnancies are likely to be healthier, seek prenatal care, and have healthier children.
Given all of this, shouldn't the question be why a group of mostly men -- bishops or otherwise -- need an extra-extra special exemption from prioritizing the health of women? Sadly, this is no freak occurrence. When the Obama administration made the misguided decision not to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter, the debate focused exclusively on the way he -- "as a father" -- viewed the idea of 11-year-old girls getting Plan B with their pack of gum. The overwhelming majority of young women who were simply trying to avoid pregnancy or abortion, both far more risky than Plan B, were ignored. And when a collection of almost all men pushed the "Bart Stupak amendment," holding health reform they supposedly supported hostage for the sake of inroads on their anti-choice agenda, the actual impact their amendment would have on women was virtually absent as news coverage lionized these men's dedication to their consciences.
Shouldn't we ask why women's health, our ability to control our lives and bodies and careers, is such a popular political football? Is it because the women who actually are affected have no voice in our political system?
We need to start asking women what they think about birth control getting covered by their insurance.
You can start with us. We're glad. And if you're part of the 80% of Americans who agree with us, you can sign this card letting the administration know they did the right thing: www.weareultraviolet.org
Nancy K. Kaufman: Birth Control And Government: The Right of Refusal Should Belong to Women
At what point does one balance the needs of the people working for such organizations against the supposed tender sensibilities of the organization?
Is it okay for such organizations to not hire minorities?
The Mormon Church, for instance, is famous for its organized discrimination against blacks.
Is it okay for such organizations to not hire women?
The Catholic and Mormon churches lobbied hard against the Equal Rights Amendment and women's rights.
Where does one draw the line.
Particularly when these sensitive religious organizations take such huge amounts of government cash for their operations?
If I were a woman, I would attack them in the streets.
1. Our own act, in itself, must be good. (But paying for sterilizations isn't....)
2. Cooperating with the sterilizations must be unavoidable (Yes, it's unavoidable)
3. Our own good intention (to comply with the laws) must not be caused by means of your evil act. (It isn't....)
4. We must intend our good intention (i.e. to comply with the laws), and NOT intend your evil intention. (We don't....)
5. There must be a proportionally grave reason to permit your evil act to come about. (There is.).
As you can see here, the 1st of the 5 criteria fails, so It would therefore be an EVIL SIN for us to obey this mandate.
Do you have the gall to tell us to Sin?
You attack not just our policy, but our very Faith itself. Our bishops KNOW the theology above and they will NEVER submit to what you propose. You might cause a permanent strike and governmental shutdown (ever seen South American strikes?), or you might lose 1/6th of the nation's hospitals. Don't forget that the bishops have the power to release Catholics from their oaths of allegiance to the military, the constitution, etc. Is that what you want?
Look, you put a bishop through a 9 month pregnancy with a whiny husband who feels he's being neglected in his all-important drives while his wife's body goes through hell and vomitting and migranes and stretch marks and gastrointestinal disasters that endanger her work performance, her own financial stash, her social standing, her ever-important appearance (without which neither her boss nor her husband would be interested in her), etc.
And then the women of the world will care about which principles he feels he can suspend for potentially pregnant people.
I find it disgraceful that those interested in gender equality continue to attack the male gender in overtly sexist ways. For one you fail to recognize women are also Catholics who happen to be the largest religious denomination in this country. You also demonize these beliefs for being a product of male leadership rather than a genuine moral conviction held by a substantial portion of our population. A few representing many is a fundamental aspect of modern governance. Women who are the majority of the electorate put men into positions of power and women who are less likely to pursue these roles are being well represented by these men. The gender of our leaders don't matter, it's whether or not they reflect the values of those they suppose to represent.
Instead of recognizing American's diverse views you choose to attack the male gender, which demonstrates your willingness to use bigotry to aid your cause. By the way women don't have a right to society paying for their birth control and $50 a month isn't a lot of money. If you can't afford it buy a 50 cent condom. Women need to take control of their own lives instead of pawning their problems off on the society at large because they feel entitled to the support of others.
This makes liberals look bad and if we have to fight for something it shouldn't be this nickel and dime nonsense especially when it came to forcing religious institutions to cover it.
You should be able to distinguish between people having issues with killing a fetus and women being restricted to the role of reproduction.
To single out ONE necessary health care expense and NOT cover it - merely because it's an exclusively female drug - does not magically mean that this one expense is being paid for by "other people". In fact, male insurance policy holders regularly contribute to the pool of women who get gynecological care, just like female policy holders contribute to the pool of men who get urologic care. Why single out this one sex specific treatment?
Because it is THE one health care provision that allows women to be free and equal human beings. Only when women are freed from involuntary reproduction can they have any chance of being free to determine the course of their own lives. The misogyny behind making a special case out of birth control is incredibly obvious - unless one is determined not to see it.
i'd be willing to bet most of those men have no idea about that. or much about womens health in general.
Please try to think of ways to compromise with the pro-choicers. There doesn’t have to be a war on women.
And you don't have to be a Protestant to be a Calvinist. Catholics can harbor the same philosophy, just under another name.