"Let's talk about sex, baby......"

It’s one of the best and worst words in the English language.  It makes people uncomfortable.  It makes people excited.  It causes grown men and women to shout at each other, to lose their cool, to forget all decency.  It happens behind closed doors.  It’s talked about in hushed tones.  Gossip magazines make millions off of it.

It’s “sex.”

Once again, it’s taking the media by storm.  The controversial topic has recently been brought up in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times since a mandate requires religious employers to provide health care access to contraception for their employees.  In the past, many religious (mostly Catholic, it seems) institutions have refused to supply contraceptives to those who receive health care through the institutions, which include universities, hospitals, and charities.

A little background may be needed…

Catholic.com (where else would I find answers about Catholicism) states that contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible.”  In 1968, Pope Paul VI said that it is “intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.”  It is said to violate God’s will of procreation, which is also the basic purpose of sex.  You are certainly invited to read more about it yourself.  This is the most basic background needed, but contraception is mentioned in Scripture as being sinful as well.

The newest mandate is being sent to the Supreme Court to be reviewed.  Many religious institutions say that forcing them to provide birth control is against the First Amendment freedom of religion.

The issue raises a number of questions, as sex always tends to do.  I earned my BA at Loyola University Maryland (formerly Loyola College), a Jesuit institution.  My dad is a professor there.  I still get my insurance through Loyola, who does not pay for any kind of contraception.

So the first question is…do we have a choice in our insurance?  If someone doesn’t like this policy, couldn’t they just switch insurance?

I suppose I would start by saying…maybe….but most likely, no.  We don’t always have a say in what university we attend.  Sure, you can not apply to those schools.  In my case, I could either attend Loyola or pay my own way through school.  Loyola seemed like my better option.

Many other young people are on their parent’s insurance, who may be employed through religious institutions.  Adults who work in these institutions may not have been able to find employment elsewhere.  We’re not picking between tons of health care options here.  Your options are pretty limited unless you want to pay out-of-pocket for health care, which can be very expensive.

My sister, Lindsay Morrell, is a fourth year obstetrics and gynecology (ob/gyn) medical student at University of Maryland School of Medicine.  I’m totally biased, but she’s the smartest person I’ve ever met.  She graduated with a 4.0 from her undergrad university and has been interviewing at some really stellar hospitals for her residency.

“There are people employed by [institutions] which have a religious affiliation [and they] are not necessarily that religion, but are forced to comply with the standards of that religion without believing in it,” said Morrell.

So my next question is, are we taking away the First Amendment right for freedom of….not having a religion?  If my only option is health insurance through a religious institution, then I’m being forced to take on that belief…correct?

At Loyola, I had a friend who decided to protest the school’s policy to not provide contraception.  She bought a bunch of condoms and taped them to her dorm room door, with a sign that said “take one.”  Since the university did not supply condoms to students through the health center, my friend took it upon herself to supply them to the inevitably horny college students.  Campus police came and made her remove them, and she got a “talking to” about how her actions were inappropriate and against school policy.

When she took them down, did students stop having sex?  Hell no.  Is not providing these college students with contraception (or actively discouraging the use of contraception) a good idea?  Even if it is with good (read: religious) intentions?  What about sexually transmitted infections (STIs)?  Is “abstinence” really a good enough lesson (c’mon…really)?  And should schools teach sex education, or should we assume that parents will bear the responsibility.  Most importantly…what if parent’s don’t take the responsibility?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Teen-Sex-Ed.html

“A lot of people will learn either too late or incompletely and will not know what options are out there for them,” said Morrell.  “Hormones and puberty will happen whether you educate people or not.  But you can educate people and provide them with the knowledge to make good decisions both for their body, their partner's body, and help them prevent sexually transmitted infections, pregnancies, and other complications."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

 

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has proposed that states should be able to ban birth control.  He has also said that under no circumstances should a woman be able to get an abortion.  That is, unless it’s his wife.  That’s the problem.  It’s always immoral until it’s your wife/sister/daughter/mother who is going to be the one to die.  Santorum’s wife had labor induced at 19 weeks when doctors said that the fetus would not survive and she would likely die if she carried it to term.  It may not be abortion, per say…but the labor was induced knowing the fetus would not survive.  Is this not, at the very least, infanticide?

Many politicians have very strict ideas about contraception, sexual education in schools, and abortion.  Whether you think abortion is right or wrong is not at issue here.  I simply wonder how the same men who want government out of their business decisions, out of their money, and to send more men to die at war, can be so bold as to tell government that they should limit health options that will never even directly affect their bodies.  And, frankly, the same religion that screams and shouts about contraception and abortion looks the other way when it comes to divorce, which is also technically a sin (see chart).  “Small government” may be great, until it limits you.

2007 statistics from http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/FRStats/mstatus.jpg

According to a July report from the Institute of Medicine, “About half of all pregnancies in the United States are unplanned, and about 4 of 10 of those end in abortion.”  If this is true, can’t we reduce abortions by promoting contraception?  Which is the greater evil?

"I understand that different religious institutions have feelings about contraceptive medications, but insurance covers medicine,” Morrell said.  “Insurance shouldn't be taking religious stands and birth control is a legitimate medication.  Insurance companies should not be able to decide whether it's moral or ethical for somebody to take a legitimate, medically indicated pill."

Morrell also explained some of the confusion about the birth control pill and the argument that it is an “abortion pill.”  While many of those who are against contraception claim that it terminates a life, Morrell says that the birth control pill prevents contact between the sperm and the egg.  According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Medical Association, a pregnancy begins when the embryo is implanted into the uterus.  “So from the time that an egg is fertilized in the fallopian tubes to the time it implants in the uterus, it is still not considered a pregnancy,” said Morrell.  Medically, this would mean that the pill would not be similar to an abortion. IUDs, which are implanted into the uterus, do prevent implantation.

"If people are religious and believe that birth control is unacceptable, then they don't have to get it from their doctor.  Just because it is an option for the employees of a religious institution doesn't mean that everybody is going to be forced to take birth control.  It just makes it an option.  They still have their freedom of religion to do as they please,” said Morrell.

The point of this post is not to begin an abortion debate or to argue with anyone’s personal or moral views.  I don’t think anyone is FOR abortion.  People simply want to be allowed options (“safe, legal, and rare” as the Clintons say).  People want the option to not pay hundreds of dollars for their birth control because their employer won’t cover it.  People want to be able to support their families, to put food on the table.  People want to have sex with their husband or wife and not worry that they’ll have another child when they’re 50 years old, or who they won’t be able to support because they lost their job.

The United States is the land of opportunities.  Religious institutions want the opportunity to practice their religion and the freedom to stand by their moral beliefs.  Employees want the opportunity to get contraception through their health care coverage, and they want to get it without having to look for another job or pick another university to attend.

The question is – who should  have more of an opportunity?

Keep the conversation going…what do you think?  Should the Supreme Court uphold religious freedom and overturn the mandate?  Or should they uphold the mandate requiring religious institutions provide contraception to their employees?  I understand that this is a controversial topic, so please be respectful of myself and others in your comments.