Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why so many people want to force religious organizations into violating their core values. Yes, I am speaking about the HHS mandate about birth control. I should probably preface this by acknowledging that I am in favor of government health insurance (which would actually end at least the religious intolerance debate on the issue). But that being said, here are my reasons in no particular order as to why I believe the issue is seemingly ignorant of both women's health and the religious freedom that founded our nation.
1. We get a choice where we work, go to school, visit our doctor, etc. It's a choice to utilize a religious institution. I'll let you in on a secret--if you don't like a religious one, secular places exist too.
When I began attending my Catholic college I signed the student handbook. By doing so I agreed to the policies outlined in it and to live in a community that upholds the tenants of the faith upon which the college was founded. Guess what? I specifically wanted to go to a Catholic college for that very reason--because I knew that there wouldn't be condoms being shoved at me, because I knew that co-ed sleepovers were a no-no (random shout out to SM for hosting my husband overnight), because I wanted to be surrounded by people who acted in similar ways. Did everyone agree to these same ideologies? Of course not! However I am appalled by the number of my peers who are condemning our college for living out it's faith-filled tradition. You want birth control prescribed in the health center, go to a state school.
The same holds true for where we work. We do not live in country where you are dictated what you will do in life (yes, those places still exist in the world today). Instead, you decide what you will do and where you will do it. Having worked at three different religious organizations and now a governmental one, I am well aware of the hiring process. Each time, I was hired, I was told the ideologies of the companies upfront. And each place had them (the Commonwealth of VA does not allow you to have a second job without written permission from HR), and I choose to follow them. I am pretty certain that any reasonable religious organization does not hide the fact that it expects you to live within the realm of its principles--at least the three where I worked were pretty forthcoming.
So it upsets me when people are saying that the Church is preventing women from living life as they'd like to. How is that a valid argument? Seeing that the choice was up to the women where to work/go to school/etc. in the first place, didn't they chose not to live life as they wished? If you don't like it, no one is stopping you from finding a new job or transferring.
2. So what if the cost is shifted onto the health insurance rather than religious organization in the legislation; the employee/employers will be given a pretty hefty price hike in the coming years, I am sure. I seriously hope I am proven wrong. But my insurance rates have increased every year I have been working--and that's without this written into the bill.
I would also like to point out (again, having worked for three religious organizations) I have never heard of medical, non-contraceptive uses of the pill ever been denied coverage. A co-pay attached? Sure! But don't diabetes medicines have co-pays? I paid $25 last month to fight off my bronchitis. Although then you are probably thinking, bronchitis and diabetes medicines are not preventative, so onward to #3.
3. Since when is pregnancy a disease? If you ask any mother, I am pretty sure they will tell you that they didn't "catch" pregnancy; rather, they became pregnant. It's not a disease that can be cured. Oddly enough, it's actually a pretty natural occurrence that has happened even before humankind existed. That's right--even Darwinians would have agree that pregnancy is not a disease, but a way of establishing new life from a small cell to a fully developed human being. It's natural process of life.
I guess then falling into the disease categories would be aging, farting, and any other natural body function that may be considered an inconvenience. I am in just the beginning stages of needing anti-aging cream. That should be preventative medicine covered without a copay, don't you agree?
Or, how about my gym membership? Seriously, the surgeon general and the first lady are both constantly telling us to be active. I would love to be, but I can't afford the $100 a month for a gym with childcare. Exercise truly is preventative medicine; studies show that it reduces stress, heart disease, diabetes, provides lower rates of cancer. My PCP and I have had long discussions about how great it is. Discussions don't pay membership fees.
But sterilization? I'm sorry, that is not preventative unless pregnancy is a disease. Which other living beings on the planet don't want to reproduce? I'm sure if you asked the do-do bird if expanding its population was a bad thing, it would have thought you were crazy.
4. Regardless of your stance on what should/should not be covered and by whom, this act is an attack on religious freedom. I am fascinated by the Amish. I mean really fascinated. For over 300 years, only slight changes have been made to the way the community operates. If you insert health care in place of education (and the federal government in place of Wisconsin) in the Wisconsin v. Yoder Supreme Court case, I think you can understand what I mean:
It follows that, in order for Wisconsin to compel school attendance beyond the eighth grade against a claim that such attendance interferes with the practice of a legitimate religious belief, it must appear either that the State does not deny the free exercise of religious belief by its requirement or that there is a state interest of sufficient magnitude to override the interest claiming protection under the Free Exercise Clause. Long before there was general acknowledgment of the need for universal formal education, the Religion Clauses had specifically and firmly fixed the right to free exercise of religious beliefs, and buttressing this fundamental right was an equally firm, even if less explicit, prohibition against the establishment of any religion by government. The values underlying these two provisions relating to religion have been zealously protected, sometimes even at the expense of other interests of admittedly high social importance....
The essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion. We can accept it as settled, therefore, that, however strong the State's interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests. (Burger for Wisconsin v. Yoder).
Maybe it's because I work in education, but I believe that education and health care are equals on the importance spectrum. And just like this landmark case, religious institutions are not asking for a complete removal from the health care requirements, only the ones that lie in direct contrast with their beliefs.
5. A large majority of Catholic women use birth control. So what? A quick survey around my college and the vast majority of college students have drank underage. Neither of these surveys get to whether it's right or wrong. Many Catholic women take birth control not knowing that it is even against the church's teachings. And if even they did, people break the rules all the time, yet it doesn't mean rules shouldn't exist. People violate their own values all the time (think about the last time you hurt someone you cared about because you were angry or frustrated); it doesn't mean that you don't value them overall.
I hope it goes without saying that most religious organizations have been pro-life for.. well, forever. God created man and woman in his likeness. If that is held as a universal truth then by ending life or preventing life (as is the case of sterilization) you are preventing the possibility of God coming into your world. Basically the federal government is requiring these religious organizations to acknowledge that their followers do not need to be open to God. (That's right; while the institution doesn't have to pay for it, the insurance company must then reach out and allow the employee know that sterilization is available completely free.)
6. I am a woman--let me be what a man cannot be. Eleanor Holmes Norton was right. It was disgusting that it was only men testifying that day.
I am a woman, and I can do something no man can do--give birth to a child. Why is only the sterilization of women covered in this act? Men can have operations too. Why is it that women's movement has been taking us as a nation in the past few years away from being women? Women are capable of so much, and yet it is suggested to us that we should stop the one thing that keeps us different from men, hosting a child in our bodies. Yes, we are as strong as men (and I would argue stronger emotionally). So why have women been persuading into thinking motherhood is not valuable? I don't know about you, but my mother and grandmother have always been the most valuable women in my life. They have taught me that I can achieve greatness, and being a mother myself is my tribute back to them. Why would I want to prevent that?
Yet, we are one of the only first world countries that does not take care of new moms. My international students thought I was crazy for coming back to work after 12 weeks with my newborn. It was all I was allowed before I could lose my job. Oh, and only one week was completely paid. So, let's cover sterilization and have new mom's stress about money. Yes, I can see how valuable women are right now.
After three hour of writing next to my sick toddler, I think this is all I have for now. There are several other arguments to be made. I'm just tired of defending what I believe to be an attack on my religion and my gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment