In many respects it is amazing that in 2012 there is a controversy over women's access to birth control.
Let's be clear, the current controversy over the Obama administration's rules that require all employers who provide health insurance to provide birth control without a co-pay to its women employees, has nothing whatsoever to do with religious freedom.
It has everything to do with an attempt to take away women's access to easy, affordable birth control, no matter where they work.
Birth control is not controversial. Surveys show that 99 percent of women and 98 percent of Catholic women have used birth control at some time in their lives.
No one is trying to require that anyone else use birth control if it violates their religious convictions. But the convictions of some religious leaders should not be allowed to trump the rights of women employees to have access to birth control.
The rule in question exempts 355,000 churches from this requirement since they presumably hire individuals who share the religious faith of the institutions in question. But it does not exempt universities and hospitals that may be owned by religious organizations, but serve -- and employ -- people of all faiths to engage in decidedly secular activities. These are not "religious institutions." They are engaged in the normal flow of commerce, even though they are owned by religious organizations.
Some religious leaders argue that they should not be required to pay for birth control coverage for their employees if they have religious objections to birth control. This argument ignores the fact that health insurance coverage is not a voluntary gift to employees. It is a part of their compensation package. If someone opposed the minimum wage on religious grounds -- say because they believed it "discouraged individual initiative" -- that wouldn't excuse them from having to pay the minimum wage.
If a Christian Science institution opposed invasive medical treatment on religious grounds, it would not be allowed to provide health care plans that fund only spiritual healing.
Many Americans opposed the Iraq War -- some on religious grounds. That did not excuse them from paying taxes to the government.
The overwhelming majority of Americans oppose taking away the ability for women to have easy, affordable access to birth control. A Public Policy Polling survey released yesterday found that 56 percent of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent opposed. Fifty-three percent of Catholic voters favor the benefit.
Fifty-seven percent of voters think that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women.
No doubt these numbers would be vastly higher if the poll were limited to the employees of those hospitals and universities because eliminating the requirement of coverage would cost the average woman $600 to $1,200 per year in out-of-pocket costs.
But ironically, requiring birth control coverage generally costs nothing to the institution that provides it. That's because by making birth control accessible, health plans cut down on the number of unwanted pregnancies that cost a great deal more. And of course they also cut down on the number of abortions.
That may help explain why many Catholic-owned universities already provide coverage for birth control. For instance, a Georgetown University spokesperson told ThinkProgress yesterday that employees "have access to health insurance plans offered and designed by national providers to a national pool. These plans include coverage for birth control."
The University of San Francisco, the University of Scranton, DePaul University in Chicago, Boston College -- all have health insurance plans that cover contraception.
And, finally, this is nothing new. Twenty-eight states already require organizations that offer prescription insurance to cover contraception.
Of course the shocking thing about this entire controversy is that there is a worldwide consensus that the use of birth control is one of society's most important moral priorities. Far from being something that should be discouraged, or is controversial, the use of birth control is critical to the survival and success of humanity.
In 1968, the world's population reached 3.5 billion people. On October 31, 2011, the United Nations Population Division reported that the world population had reached seven billion. It had doubled in 43 years.
It took 90,000 years of human development for the population to reach 1 billion. Over the last two centuries the population has grown by another six billion.
In fact, in the first 12 years of the 21st Century, we have already added a billion people to the planet.
It is simply not possible for this small planet to sustain that kind of exponential human population growth. If we do, the result will be poverty, war, the depletion of our natural resources and famine. Fundamentally, the Reverend Malthus was right -- except that the result is not inevitable.
Population growth is not something that just happens to us. We can choose whether or not to reproduce and at what rates.
No force is required. The evidence shows that the population explosion stops where there is the availability of birth control and women have educational opportunity.
That's why it is our moral imperative to act responsibly and encourage each other to use birth control. And it's not a hard sell. Children are the greatest blessing you can have in life. But most people are eager to limit the number of children they have if they have access to contraception. We owe it to those children -- to the next generation and the generation after that -- to act responsibly and stabilize the size of the human population.
The moral thing to do is to make certain that every woman who wants it has access to birth control.
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: 'Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win', available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter @rbcreamer.
Follow Robert Creamer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rbcreamer
Rev. Debra Haffner: Religious Leaders Support White House on Contraceptive Coverage
I am being fecetious, of course. Of course I have to sell the alcohol. IT's MY JOB. So, tell me, what's the difference between me and pharmacists and medical services, eh?
You just proved the point. If 99% percent of women have used B.C. then they must by default ALREADY HAVE ACCESS TO IT!!!!
Duhh!
Not everyone's.
You list your reasons and want YOUR moral thing imposed on everyone.
Even if it means the Obama admin. & federal govt. usurp religious freedom and FORCE Catholic hospitals (etc.) to go against their beliefs, morality, teaching.
Good you are concerned about women.
I am concerned about the exercise of federal government authority to trample freedom of religion and religious rights of others.
(To enact your preferred Thing.)
And, it has turned me now from strongly For Obama's healthcare, to strongly Against. (Now that I see, early-on, how the authority can and will be misused).
I am raising my son Catholic and my husband and I were raised Catholic. I remain a very conflicted Catholic over issues such as this and the accceptance of gays (and gay marriage).
I wonder if you would feel the same if they took the route of France and told Muslim women they could not wear their religious head covering.
This issue is created specifically as an election year attack. Similar rules already exist in many states and several of those states don't allow any religious exemption. Recent polls show that the majority of Catholics support the changes of this rule as well as a majority of Americans.
My wife and I have 6 childern, are you suggesting that we have some sort of mental defect?
Catholic women have the free will to VIOLATE the tenets and rules of their church. It's called "sinning." They also have the freedom to leave their church if they don't agree with the tenets. Churches don't change their teachings to conform to the wishes of parishioners.
Says who? You? The Catholic Church answers to a slightly higher authority than you, Obama OR women who don't wish to follow Church doctrine.
The Mormons managed to adjust their stance on polygamy, when they could have let their religion just die out, instead (whether or not it was legally required they do so doesn't matter.)
Why Catholic hierarchy can' tmanage to budge on this issue is a mystery to me. But it tells me a lot about how well they listent to the needs of their followers (which I used to be one of)- which should not be an irrelevant concern.
This article may help point out the differences:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/is-it-a-doctrine-or-a-discipline
"Why Catholic hierarchy can' tmanage to budge on this issue is a mystery to me. "
Two parts: Can't and won't. Can't because its a moral teaching, won't because there is no reason to do so. The Catholic stance on birth control is a part of a consistent view on what it means to be human and what sexual relationships mean.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control