Bishops and religious right intensify crusade against contraceptives

July 16, 2012 | Filed under: Reproductive Rights,US Conference of Catholic Bishops,Views | Posted by: Rob Boston

A few weeks ago, I was rummaging through a storage closet at home when I came across a stamp collection I kept when I was a kid.

I was surprised to see it because I assumed that I had long ago discarded this battered book of postage stamps mainly from the 1960s and ‘70s. I began leafing through it and almost immediately spotted a U.S. stamp that made me do a double-take. It was an 8-cent stamp from 1972 that depicted a drawing of a typical nuclear family of a mother and father with two children. Across the top were the words “Family Planning.”

Wow. So there was a time when the federal government not only talked about contraceptives as a positive thing but even celebrated them on a postage stamp.

That would never happen now. We’ve been pulled backward to the extent that we’re now having a serious national discussion about to what extent Americans should even have access to birth control. Right-wing religious groups that seek to curtail Americans’ ability to get and use birth control are feeling newly empowered.

In other words, in case you’re wondering, all’s still not quiet on the birth control front.

The Catholic bishops, aided and abetted by their pals in the Religious Right, continue working to deny Americans access to affordable and effective forms of contraceptives. The bishops recently hosted “Fortnight for Freedom,” a two week-long series of rallies and other events around the country designed to press the church’s view that it is being persecuted because the new health care law requires religiously affiliated organizations to contract with insurance companies that will provide no-cost birth control to those who want it.

As Americans United has pointed out several times, houses of worship are exempt from this mandate. The rule covers only institutions like church-run hospitals, colleges and social-service agencies. These entities receive massive amounts of taxpayer support and hire and serve non-Catholics. Thus, they’re open to reasonable forms of regulation.

So far, President Barack Obama is standing firm on this issue. Obama was asked about the matter recently by a reporter from New Orleans.

“Well it’s absolutely true that religious liberty is critical,” Obama said. “I mean, that’s what our country was founded on. That’s the reason why we exempted churches, we exempted religious institutions, but we did say that big Catholic hospitals or universities who employ a lot of non-Catholics and who receive a lot of federal money, that for them to be in a position to say to a woman who works there you can’t get that from your insurance company even though the institution isn’t paying for it, that that crosses the line where that woman, she suddenly is gonna have to bear the burden and the cost of that. And that’s not fair.”

It was great to hear Obama frame the issue this way. He debunked the spurious religious liberty claims of the Catholic hierarchy and the Religious Right and pointed out that this is a significant issue of women’s rights. (I would go further and call it a human rights issue. Men have a stake in this, too.)

But Obama’s words won’t stop the religious zealots who are determined to use government policy as a vehicle to enforce their theology. Attorneys general in several states are moving forward with a courtroom attack on the Obama mandate, and legislators in at least one state, Missouri, have passed a law to give any employer the right to remove birth control coverage from health insurance plans. (Gov. Jay Nixon vetoed the bill, but there will be an attempt to override.)

A similar bill is pending in the U.S. Congress.

Meanwhile, Melinda Gates, wife of Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, has announced that she plans to put the issue of contraceptives back on the international agenda. Gates, who was raised Catholic and remains a member of the church, will pour $4 billion into the campaign. She points to a study undertaken by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation showing that access to birth control saves lives.

Reported CBS News, “Her announcement comes in conjunction with a July 10 study in the Lancet that shows contraception prevents 272,040 maternal deaths each year – about a 44 percent reduction in mortality rates. If more birth control were to be provided, researchers believe that maternal deaths could be reduced an additional 30 percent.”

The announcement by the high-profile Gates and her big-dollar pledge will push the issue forward, but it’s sure to spark another backlash as well. Despite the fact that surveys shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans use artificial forms of birth control at some point in their lives, the bishops and their Religious Right allies are convinced that this is a winning issue for them and are working to insert it into the November elections.

To the theocrats among us, “religious freedom” has an odd definition – it’s the right to use the power of government to force their theology onto everyone and even the right to meddle in our most intimate and personal decisions.

The American people (and many moderate and progressive religious groups) reject this definition of religious liberty. Sensible people long ago concluded that it’s foolish for government to adopt policies that have the effect of coercing people to have more children than they want or can afford to raise.

One of these days, we’ll drag the theocrats kicking and screaming into the modern world as well – or at least convince politicians to stop listening to them.

Who knows, maybe we’ll even reissue the Family Planning stamp.

P.S. I recently wrote a story for Church & State on the long-running efforts by conservative religious groups to ban birth control – and the great success they enjoyed not so long ago. You can read it here.

13 Responses to Bishops and religious right intensify crusade against contraceptives

Ignatius Theophorus July 16, 2012 - 1:12 pm

While I can understand your position, there are very fundamental problems. 1. Contraception is already available in most areas for incredibly cheap (Planned Parenthood lists the price at somewhere between $15 and $50/month). Planned Parenthood and like-minded organizations are more than ready to supplement this payment. So cost is really a non-issue, this is about principles. 2. Changing this policy would not mean that the government is forcing people to have (or not have) children. It just doesn’t. If for no other reason than the fact that it is relatively inexpensive. 3. It is disingenuous to allow for contraception and not make the same policy for life-saving drugs. To those of us with chronic conditions, this policy reads, “We are going to let everyone have as much sex as they want, but if you need insulin you can *f* off.” (I actually need Lamotrigine, but no one has ever heard of that) 4. This is the most important issue: Catholic principles cannot allow for contraception without a self-contradiction. To give up this issue would actually come at a phenomenally high cost (think on par with denying, say, evolution as a humanist). This is not merely a mild inconvenience.

- Mike Daniels July 16, 2012 - 4:38 pm
  
  Ignatius, you are missing a few points yourself. 1. Planned Parenthood and similar organizations are not accessible to all women in the country. Pharmacies are. $50 a month is quite a lot of money for many people; it’s enough to feed two people for a week or more, if they spend wisely. Do you think a low-income family, barely getting by, should be forced to choose between using new shoes for their children or preventing more babies, which would then be enough to force them onto food stamps or begging at food banks? 2. I don’t think anyone suggested the government was forcing people to have children or to not have children. 3. Does this mean you support single-payer, universal coverage? 4. A more important issue: American principles of religious liberty do not allow the Catholic church to force its beliefs upon non-Catholics, which is exactly what the Bishops are trying to do. American principles of religious liberty also do not allow the US government to permit the Catholic church legal authority to make decisions for its members against their will. No Catholic is required by any law to use contraception; if their conscience forbids their use of contraception, they are free to refuse. Likewise, no Catholic institution is forced to pay for contraception for its employees, regardless of their religion or lack thereof; rather, the insurers are required to include contraception (as they have been required to do since 2000), and now must not charge a co-payment.
  
  - Ignatius Theophorus July 16, 2012 - 9:47 pm
    
    1. A woman is working for a Catholic institution which is not exempt that is excessively far from Planned Parenthood is highly improbable. I think the only ones which might qualify might be the programs which support migrant workers? (since that would imply that the person has the ability to drive, I can’t imagine that it would present substantial problems). Further, while the Catholic Church is not the best paying employer, it was my experience that they were able to pay enough that most drugs were affordable with a minimal copay after (small) deductible. Now, while I will admit that the diocese I worked for may well be an exception, but it seemed like that was the case fairly consistently across NJ. All of that being said, if a woman is too strapped for cash and wants to be able to have all of the benefits of the pill, she need look no farther than condoms, which are cheaper and at relatively equal availability. (expensive condoms are around $2.50, assuming a woman has intercourse twice a week while not menstruating, that averages to under $17/month) 2. I took your statement, “use government policy as a vehicle to enforce their theology” to mean the opposite. I apologize if this was not your intended meaning. 3. I find single-payer to have certain benefits. I generally prefer it to individual mandate if only because I believe that the only group which is more incompetent and corrupt than the government are insurance companies. Additionally, the moral implications of easy access to contraception changes when the government becomes the bad actor (instead of forcing the Church to become a bad actor) 4. This is not forced on anyone, nor is this a legal question. This is a case of the federal government involving itself in what should be private contract negotiations in such a way that it compromises the religious and moral position of one of the actors. There is no fundamental difference between, “you must pay so that there is no co-pay” and “you may only buy insurance from a company which will pay the co-pay.” It boils down to the same dollar doing the same thing and that final end is not moral. I suppose it might be akin to the difference between, “you must pay someone to assassinate” and, “you must pay some company which will assassinate for you.”
    
ORAXX July 16, 2012 - 3:23 pm

The religious right and conservatives in general, will never run out of people they think they need to control.

- Ignatius Theophorus July 16, 2012 - 10:48 pm
  
  And who are they controlling? This isn’t a matter of “you can’t do that.” It is a matter of, “we don’t want to pay for you to do that.”
  
  - James Kessler July 17, 2012 - 4:33 pm
    
    Again, Ignatius, since the Catholic church isn’t paying for it you’re blowing smoke. But let me know when the Catholic church bothers to get pissy about it paying for such things as Viagra.
    
    - Ignatius Theophorus July 17, 2012 - 9:50 pm
      
      Even if I assume you are correct (which I don’t). You haven’t addressed my point. How is this forcing anyone to do anything? Oh, and no one is being forced to pay for viagra to my knowledge. But, I will admit ignorance: can you cite where the AHA talks about viagra?
      
      - James Kessler July 18, 2012 - 6:10 am
        
        Pay attention. Most insurance plans cover things like Viagra and Cialis. So it’s a pretty sure bet that the insurance plans paid for by the Catholic church also cover Viagra and Cialis and yet you don’t hear the Catholic church kvetching about those. You don’t hear the Catholic church kvetching that insurance covers vasectomy’s. I never mentioned the AHA so it’s kind of curious that you tried limiting the topic of viagra and cialis to just the AHA….. As for this “Even if I assume you are correct (which I don’t). You haven’t addressed my point. How is this forcing anyone to do anything?” you mean besides the fact that there are areas of the country where getting contraceptives is difficult and that female contraception, as opposed to male contraception, tends to be quite a bit more expensive? If a Catholic hospital is the only hospital within 100 miles then where exactly do you think women are going to get contraception from? Because it’s not like there is a Planned Parenthood in every town not to mention the fact that the right wing is actively trying to shut Planned Parenthood down. You live in New Jersey, Ignatius. You might want to consider the possibility that the situation out in the rest of the country might possibly be different when it comes to the ready availability of such things as Plannet Parenthood and there being lots of hospitals around. Where I live in Minnesota there is 5 hospitals within 20 miles. Where my aunt lives in Minnesota there is one hopsital within a 70 mile radius and absolutely no Planned Parenthood facilities. If that one hospital was a Catholic hospital (it’s not) then any woman in the area that my aunt lives in would be absolutely unable to get contraception unless they drove 2 hours south to the Twin Cities or two hours east to get to Duluth or 2 hours west to get to Fargo/Moorhead. And Minnesota is a middlin size state with an actual population density. The Dakota’s and Montana, for example, are larger size states with far smaller size populations. And why should a non-Catholic have to abide by the Catholic church’s teachings regarding contraception? Or hell for that matter why should a Catholic be forced to? Oh and please don’t argue “Because real Catholics follow the church teachings 100% of the time” or some other claptrap because laughing that much might be dangerous to my health. If you don’t like contraception then don’t use it. If the Catholic church doesn’t like contraception then they shouldn’t use it. But whether someone else uses contraception or not is really noone elses business but the person(s) directly involved. And it is entirely stupid of the Catholic church to take this position on contraception when the Catholic church supposedly has a bigger problem with abortions and single parent families. Sorry, this Catholic considers it far more important to lower the number of abortions and lower the number of single parent families then it is to worry about what a woman is using in the privacy of her own damn bedroom. Oh by the way you say $50 a month at Planned Parenthood for contraception is cheap. You know many poor people with a spare $600 to throw around?
      - James Kessler July 18, 2012 - 6:18 am
        
        I suggest you read http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/decision-contraception.html which is from 2000. Because I find it real curious why the Catholic church waited 12 years to suddenly find a problem with insurance being required to cover contraception. Oh wait..silly me…I forgot about the “Scary Black Man in the White House” part of the equation. Oh and no..I’m not accusing the Catholic church of being racist. I’m accusing the Catholic church hierarchy in this country of hopping into bed with the political right wing and doing everything possible to make sure that the political right wing wins even if it means lying and conjuring up fake outrage. The proof? Well beyond the church not having a problem with the EEOC ruling in 2000? Well there’s the fact that the Catholic church has absolutely no problem in screwing over the religious freedom of people when it comes to gay marriage. If the Catholic church doesn’t want to marry gays that is one thing..but why should the Catholic church get to determine whether the Lutheran church marries gays? Nor do I recall the Catholic church objecting when the GOP thought it would be a jolly good idea to make it so that any employer’s religious beliefs could be used to determine what their employee’s health insurance covers.
jay July 17, 2012 - 3:52 pm

I’m an old coot (63) and have been out of the birth control area since my vasectomy some years ago. But, in my entire working life before that, birth control was NEVER covered under any medical plan I had. (Which makes some sense in the same way that oil changes are not covered by your car insurance: it’s a regular maintenance expense and not an unpredictable high cost like an auto accident). I know that some people can’t afford it but it would be simpler to have a government program like food stamps for those who need help. It is kind of counterproductive for ‘insurance’ to cover regular nominal expenses. I’d go a step further. It is a big historical mistake for employers to be involved in our medical insurance at all. Why should they? Are they involved in our auto or home insurance (though some offer discounted policies through the company that’s purely optional). What we really NEED to do is remove the employer from the equation. Unfortunately tax law and insurance law drastically favor employer funded insurance but it’s the screwed up laws that need to be changed. Give us access to the same tax benefits and group benefits that people get through employers and let us choose our own damned insurance.

"B" July 17, 2012 - 4:11 pm

I have to disagree, Jay. As a male, of course your insurance won’t cover birth control, but my does offer me a negligible discount to my wife’s birth control pills, which ironically had to be specially tailored to her to not affect breast milk. But I do have to agree with getting employers out of the equation. But I prefer to move to a single payer set up, and remove the insurance companies entirely, after all, they offer nothing to the supplier; doctors, or the consumers; us. And as for you Ignatius, your an idiot. I don’t want my tax dollars funding the bigoted behavior of Catholic “charities” but that isn’t likely to stop any time soon, is it?

jay July 17, 2012 - 4:52 pm

Actually I had family plan insurance, but birth control was still not covered (pregnancy was). “But I do have to agree with getting employers out of the equation. But I prefer to move to a single payer set up, and remove the insurance companies entirely, after all, they offer nothing to the supplier; doctors, or the consumers; us” They offer the same thing that auto or home or business insurance offers: pooled risk and a way of managing that risk. Which is, at least, what it should be. Passing it off to single payer (government) does not eliminate the cost it just hides it behind taxes. There is no free lunch.

"B" July 17, 2012 - 6:23 pm

I’m not asking for a free lunch, as you say, but an insurance company is a for-profit entity, and with practices that ration care through lifetime maximums, and loopholes to kick undesirable customers, it allows abuse. A single payer system allows the cost sharing across the board, using a non-profit entity to manage it. While the government may have proven itself inept in many ways, I still prefer them to the executives when it comes to health care. My insurance plan currently is fully funded by the employees and employer, using united healthcare as the administration, but I don’t know that cost to us. What I do know, is that the quality and coverage has dropped, while the costs have increased every single year.