Despite President Obama's accommodating move last week, conservative leaders are hurtling along in their attempt to restrict birth control. They've gained a righteous head of steam so quickly they don't seem to care that they're about to careen off the tracks.
They're not backing down despite polling that shows 99 percent of women in the United States will use contraception in their lifetimes, and 56 percent of voters support the requirement that health care plans cover prescription birth control with no deductibles or co-pays.
Let's review: First the Department of Health and Human Services gave churches an exemption from playing by the rules of the Affordable Care Act -- an exemption NOW continues to oppose. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops wanted other religiously affiliated institutions -- such as Catholic hospitals and universities -- to be excused as well. They lobbied hard, with influential newspapers like The Washington Post taking the bishops' side. The Obama administration chose instead to keep the refusal clause narrow but require insurers to absorb the cost of birth control for employees of religiously affiliated institutions. When the bishops didn't get everything they wanted, GOP legislators took up the charge, with a twist: Now they want to give a pass to any employer that claims providing their employees with access to birth control coverage goes against their religious beliefs. I shudder to think how many women such a loophole would affect.
But there's no need to do the math. Because what this right-wing runaway train is headed for is every woman it can possibly reach. Intruding into women's reproductive lives typically starts with women who are most economically vulnerable -- those who depend on government assistance or -- gasp -- private insurance, to pay for their health care costs. Even if you can afford to pay for your own pills, is it fair that you are being asked to, when other preventive services and medications are covered under health care reform?
The conservative talking point of the moment is that this fight is about religious liberty. Religious institutions do have important rights in our democracy. But their rights must be weighed against individual women's rights and against our society's shared interest in public health. Thus, a religiously affiliated employer's first amendment rights must be weighed against: women's constitutional rights to religious freedom (1st Amendment), privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), and equal protection (14th Amendment); women's statutory rights against sex discrimination (Title VII) and pregnancy discrimination (Pregnancy Discrimination Act) in the workplace; the increasingly recognized international human right to unfettered access to basic health care (and birth control is obviously basic health care for women); and society's interest in assuring public health, a key aspect of which is availability of family planning.
Looks like the scale is weighed heavily in favor of a woman's right to birth control access. Additionally, religious entities do not have blanket immunity from every law and regulation in the land that conflicts with their tenets, so why should this directive be any different? Oh, that's right -- this one affects women.
Conservative candidates are campaigning on a platform that is proudly hostile to family planning funding and to the idea of a government safety net. This kind of vilification of women and poor people combined with allusions to religious persecution and unfair taxes sure does rile up the conservative base. While candidates like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are likely driven by political expediency, some of our most powerful opponents -- like the bishops -- clearly have ideological fervor fueling them.
So, the question becomes: Is anti-contraception zeal about protecting the bishops' religious liberty or is it about keeping women in a perpetually disadvantaged status? A woman who cannot control her reproductive life, who cannot plan her own family, is unable to contribute to the community on her own terms, and moreover is at the mercy of men and the state. Turning back the clock in this way is not only unjust but stupendously dangerous.
That's why we must get out the word that opponents of birth control coverage are opponents of birth control, period. And they are hazardous to our health -- the health of women and the health of this nation. Talk to your friends and family, contact your legislators. Tell them we must all stand together. Yes, the bishops and their radical right cronies in government will keep making their ridiculous demands. But we don't need to give in to them. We can stand up for women's rights and wave victoriously as their crazy train leaves the station.
Follow Terry O'Neill on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Terryoneill
Stephanie Schriock: WHY 2012: Women's Historic Year
PLEASE SIGN THIS URGENT PETITION: http://signon.org/sign/where-are-the-women
Yes, you may have the right to use birth control. That does not however mean that others have to support and pay for your rights. I have the right to own firearms but guess TFW? I buy my own guns. I have the right to vote but I do not however have the right to free taxi rides to the polls. I exercise my rights but do not expect to infringe upon others while doing so.
Requiring Catholic institutions to provide contraceptives (and abortion) in their health plans infringes upon the rights of these church groups. The employees can use birth control 24/7. They just have to pay for it.
Requiring the church to provide birth control or buy a plan that covers birth control is a clear infringement upon their religious liberty.
And yes, not all plans cover contraceptives. You get what you pay for and you pick the plans you want.
So where are we now. Obama's grand compromise (with himself?) will require the health insurance companies to provide the BC for free? Of course it won't be free since costs will increase and the church groups will still be paying for it.
And for the record, we do pay for your guns through significantly higher taxes for extra policing and healthcare costs. 80 people die every day at the hands of a gun in this country. If you don't think that cost is passed on to everyone your tin foil hat is too tight.
As for infringing on religious liberty, don't make me laugh. These institutions were providing birth control with copays until now. This rallying cry of "religious liberty" only refers to THEIR liberty to take away YOUR liberty. Possessing the freedom to infringe upon everyone else's freedoms is not liberty--its fascism. And spare me the 8th grade answer of "well if employees dont' like it they can go somewhere else." Not only are jobs scarce, but some of these bills in Congress want to ensure that ANY employer can deny any employee whatever coverage they find "morally objectionable". Everything about these laws in illegal--you know it, I know it, and what's worse, the bishops and the congressmen know it too.
If these were MUSLIM organizations restricting certain medical care of their employees, based on Sharia law, would you support them?
Let's see a show of hands. Pledge that you would defend Muslim organizations applying Sharia law in the workplace. Let's see you posters, and Republicans in Congress and conservative bloggers all make that pledge, publicly, right now. Show America you stand for religious freedom.
I won't hold my breath.
The truth is, if that ever happened, the conservative universe would be apoplectic about how Islam was subverting Federal Law and attacking the Constitutional rights of Americans.
This is all a political sham, to cover their attack on women.
And in fairness to Islam, unlike the Catholic Church, Muslim employers would never do such a thing.
The Republicans don't seem to care that the bishops want unemployment extended.....republicans are just using the church as a shield on the birth control issue.....
Pregnancy isn't a disease last I checked the CBC, although without Question Progressive woman might be. Even those rich 1% woman, gets this free service under FULL PENALTY OF LAW. As always those paying the entire rental fees, have NO rights entering the building they paid for. Welcome to progressive values.
If this Law substantially raises the cost of hiring woman over males, Could one legally limit the amount of woman it hires as a cost cutting measure? We're Not discriminating against woman rights/activities, we're simply hiring cheaper employee, I Smell Special Class woman's exemption in terminations decreed next.
Once again We're spending our way toward prosperity redistributing wealth toward Genitalia, culture wars, deadbeat Children with no father listed on their birth certificate, and political ideology. Every American homeowner needs demanding a $25,000-50,000 REBATE CHECK if they paid their mortgages on time as their fair share.
Corporation needs demanding Sexual harassment laws no longer exist; Why criminalize attempted usage, of the very products they paid for?
Where precisely in our Constitution is this special Breeders Class Clause?
The pharma industry is the same industry that fights any limits on cracking down on our nation's pain pill addiction, so I'm sure they will fight a reduction in birth control.