The Daily Reveille

Positively Carnal: Should employer health plans be forced to include contraception for employees?

Yes. The reform protects women from religion-based dictation of personal health.

By Kristi Carnahan

Columnist

Published: Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Updated: Monday, February 13, 2012

health reform

J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE / The Associated Press

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., center, accompanied by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., right, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. gestures Wednesday during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington.

I'm not generally one to applaud government interference in my personal life, whether in my relationships or my medical decisions. I won't tell you all new government reforms being enacted are good for U.S. citizens.

But I am thrilled with the recently announced amendments to healthcare reform.

Many Christians are fuming. I am not an outraged Christian.

I'm a thankful one.

Mandating contraception, including the Plan B pill and implantable devices, is one of the best decisions the Obama administration has made. Yes, Plan B is a contraceptive pill, not a pill to induce an abortion.

It's the government's job to ensure organizations within the U.S. aren't blatantly disregarding the rights of all people to freedom of religion.

This includes making sure religious employers provide adequate healthcare for employees who do not share their boss'S religious doctrine of no contraception.

The new ruling does allow some strict religious exemptions, but with good reason.

Not everyone who works for a religiously-affiliated organization shares those religious beliefs. If you've ever been around health care in this town, you know many who work at Our Lady of the Lake, or its affiliates, aren't devout Catholics.

Believing in the core mission of an organization does not give a boss the right to force compliance with everything that faction demands of its members. Most of the organizations throwing a fit about the amendment would never survive if they didn't employ people outside of their own denomination.

Many media outlets reporting on the topic point to the Catholic Church as the greatest dissenter to this amendment.

Well, Mr. Pope, I don't think you can or will ever understand. You don't have to deal with these issues on a daily, weekly or monthly basis.

You have never had the worry of having a child you can't afford.

You will never know the fear that comes from knowing pregnancy could kill you, while a contraceptive implant is a simple way to save your life without major surgery (which also may not be covered).

You will never have a period so painful you can't get out of bed, or find yourself trying to prevent a pregnancy from rape.

The Pope, as a man who supposedly does not have sex, will never understand the many ways contraception is important to women's health.

The mandates aren't meant to impede religious freedom, but to protect the right to religious and personal freedom in the workplace. Catholics who don't wish to use contraception aren't being tied up and forced to take the pills or get the devices implanted.

Of course, 98 percent of Catholic women in the U.S. use contraception, according to research released in April 2011 by The Guttmacher Institute.

Contraceptive coverage will ease a financial, mental and emotional burden on women who share the Catholic doctrine, not just those of other beliefs. It simply means it is available for those who need or want it, no matter how you align yourself religiously.

All of this adds up to the fact that, frankly, my reproductive choices are none of my employer's damn business.

Healthcare decisions are made between my doctor and me. My employer has no place in that equation. My life, my body and my health are mine.

I determine what to do with my body. I determine what I put in my body.

I determine what is best for me physically, emotionally and mentally. No one has a right to tell me otherwise.

There is no place in health care for dogmatic interference, especially if it isn't my chosen philosophy. My values, ethics and self-understanding will make the best decision on whether contraception in any form is right for me.

Your theology doesn't know my body like I do.

When it all comes down to it, I think Lemmy Kilmister (of Motörhead fame) summed it up most appropriately.

"Just ‘‘cause you got the power, that don't mean you got the right."

Kristi Carnahan is a 25-year-old anthropology senior from West Monroe. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_KCarnahan.

 

____

Contact Kristi Carnahan at kcarnahan@lsureveille.com

Comments

19 comments
Anonymous
Fri Feb 10 2012 23:14
The government has no business forcing companies or insurance companies to provide contraceptives or anything else to their employees other than a fair wage - and that is something that is between the company and the employee.

If the company's plan doesn't provide what an employee wants, he/she can purchase their own insurance or just buy the contraceptives outright.

As Kristi says, this is a personal choice. And she's right: it should not involve the government; it should not involve the company; it should not involve the church. But, apparently, she believes that the company must still provide it. Well, if it's truly a personal choice then each person needs to take care of their own needs by himself/herself.

Ron

Anonymous
Fri Feb 10 2012 13:02
@Blaise, PCOS is a common reason women take birth control, or for heavy, painful periods In these cases, taking birth control pills REDUCES the risk of complications and cancer.
Adjunct R
Fri Feb 10 2012 12:12
@Heidi - "Shut up", she explained.
Gabe
Fri Feb 10 2012 11:38
Blaise says, "DHH's plan is akin to forcing the Moslem religion to pay for a pork plate lunch for anyone whenever they ask for it."

I can see where zie is going with this, but this plan would be more akin to saying "If you're going to share the cost with your employees of paying a company to be sure that employees' food needs are covered, then you can't decide what they eat based on your own religious doctrines. That decision is between the employee and hir nutritionist."

Adjunct R
Fri Feb 10 2012 09:00
Blaise said it well. Kristi wants religious freedom for employees but not for the employer. The inconsistency and self-contradictions of the political-cultural left are what I find most outrageous. For all its serious logical and factual problems, Kristi's piece is well written and that deserves a modicum of credit.

The Reveille - like most of the mainstream media - has been emphasizing the HHS regulation in terms of "birth control?" That's an attempt to skew the argument from the outset. This is also about religious liberty and the First Amendment. Will the Reveille consider that angle? If the federal government can do this, what logical limits are there on its power to compel anyone of any religion or no religion to do whatever the state wants, regardless of personal conviction and conscience? Hmm? This is the abyss which the left denies and yet toward which it drags us all.

And even if one phrases this issue solely as "birth control", even then there's a problem. Birth control isn't "health". That's rhetorical sophistry. It might be a good thing, something most people desire and use with good reason. Like exercise, good eating, sleep, changing the oil in your car, and termite control. But medical, car, property insurance normally cover costs when things go wrong, to heal, fix, repair, replace them.

But the HHS mandate says full coverage, no co-pay. That's odd. Why? Come on, people, think! This isn't about health. This is about crushing any and all dissent. No one shall defy this Caesar.

Anonymous
Fri Feb 10 2012 01:38
Several Reveille articles and its commenters tonight have taught me that the LSU community has many terrible people, who like to shame women for taking birth control. are you for serious? luckily, this article was a small break. (before I read the comments)

Clearly, some people's religious beliefs lead them not to use birth control, but that gives you no right to tell a woman what to do with her body. There are no deaths or murders involved with the pill. A lot of times, it's not even used for contraception, but for hormone control. Some women use birth control to get their periods on track, so they don't become infertile. Some of my friends take birth control, so they're not in intense pain and don't have to skip school or work 5 days every month.

Stop being jerks. Some people's beliefs actually involving respecting others.

Blaise
Thu Feb 9 2012 23:07
There have been numerous studies that show exponential increase in breast cancer and cervical cancer as a result of using birth control (as well as abortions). Here are a few. For Breast Cancer; Wingo, 40% increased risk; Rosenberg, 88% increased risk; White, 50% increased risk. For Cervical Cancer; Brinton et al, 46% increased risk; Daling et al, 130 % increased risk; Thomas et al (World Health Organization study), 230% increased risk. Just last year, the World Health Organization declared a number of birth control pills as Class 1 carcinogens. So, is it good health care to promote and give women cancer? Is it fair to force a Church to pay for killing women and babies? The more you know the truth, the more you realize abortion and birth control pills are harmful, as well as being immoral. Doing bad things does have consequences.
Blaise
Thu Feb 9 2012 23:05
Kristi,

You're so lovingly tolerant and receptive of other people's rights and feelings. Clearly I'm being sarcastic. Who do you think you are and why do you think you have a right to make the Catholic Church pay for 'your' contraceptives and abortions? Pay for it yourself if you think it's such a wonderful idea. DHH's plan is akin to forcing the Moslem religion to pay for a pork plate lunch for anyone whenever they ask for it. You think that would create some outrage? Would you defend the Government's stance because, well people deserve to have pork even if it tramples on Moslems rights? What I hope the Catholic Church does is, of course, refuse to implement this; next, refuse to pay fines; and then when tax exempt status is yanked, refuse to pay taxes.

Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 17:47
Contraception is evil. It desecrates the marital bond, offends against chastity, and is a menace to public morals. It is reprehensible to engage in contraceptive acts or to cooperate in them in any way. This is a matter of natural law; it has nothing to do with religion. Public bodies should not be promoting or enabling this sin. Neither Holy Mother Church, nor any other group, religious or secular, nor any individual should be forced by government to divulge funds for such wicked purposes.

The amazing chutzpah of those who say, "Whether I contracept is none of your business" while holding a gun to our heads and demanding we pay for their contraceptives is truly breathtaking, particularly since they are not only robbing us, but forcing us to violate our consciences while they do it. Contraceptives are cheap as dirt and common as water. Let those who want them get them themselves and not gratuitously force those who think them immoral to pay for them. Painting this as "the Church imposing its morals" on them is like accusing the pistol-whipped victim of armed robbery of lack of charity. This is an act of war against Catholic conscience and religious liberty and a naked act of malice from the Obama Administration. There must be no compromise. It must be utterly defeated.

Heidi
Thu Feb 9 2012 17:38
Scott, not everyone can afford birth control or lots of other medications out of pocket. It's extremely expensive. Why does it matter to anyone what medication a patient is getting? That is a decision for a patient and a doctor, and no one else. An employer doesn't need to know what he's paying for, he's only paying for the insurance coverage and the OPTION for women to get preventative care like birth control. There aren't any exceptions for other medications due to an employer's personal beliefs, are there? Or for men? Of course not. This whole debate is misogynistic.
Scott
Thu Feb 9 2012 13:50
Heidi, how foes a church following its own teachings "prevent their employees from receiving...care?" The Church is paying their employees, those employees can go pay for their own contraceptives. Why should the government force an employer, ANY employer, to pay for contraceptives?
Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 13:45
You seem to have forgotten not only that there is a seperation between church and state but that there is a DIFFERENCE. You claim the mandadtes are to, "to protect the right to religious and personal freedom in the workplace," but you admit that, "many who work at Our Lady of the Lake, or its affiliates, aren't devout Catholics." How then are your religious freedoms being violated? A State, albeit a very corrupt one, has power to violate religious freedoms, an employer does not. Besides, why should a Catholic employer be forced to pay for your contraception when you (hypothetically) earn money at this Catholic job and can choose to buy your own contraception? The framers knew that they needed to protect the people's rights from government power, that is why there is a 1st amendment. You see, you have the ability to leave any employer who you think is violating your religious freedom, although such a case is unlikely, but the government can throw you in jail. Stop worrying about some evil corporation or church violating your rights and stop the government from forcing a church to disobey its own teachings!
Common Sense
Thu Feb 9 2012 12:27
you can't take the 1st amendment issue out of it, that's why it was put in. vegans aren't forced to eat meat, nor pay for anything against their belief system by McDonalds. the choice not to is what i would call freedom. taking away choice is called tyranny. i think you could probably figure out which side this falls into.
Heidi
Thu Feb 9 2012 11:10
Anonymous, no. This whole thing is about giving options instead of taking away options. So, you just proved the opposite point that you meant to with your ignorance. Congrats!
Heidi
Thu Feb 9 2012 11:09
Common Sense, employers are paying for insurance. Dictating what the insurance covers and doesn't is not any of the employer's damn business. His only business is giving employees a better chance at being healthy. What the employee uses the insurance plan for is absolutely not his business. Just because someone has power and "pays the bills" doesn't mean it's okay to prevent their employees from receiving the care they need. You might think that's the system, but it can and needs to be changed. Just shut up and let the people with logic handle it.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 11:05
This article is flawless. Thank you for being rational, logical, and sane!
Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 10:59
I call it "freedom," myself. Idiot. Oh, I also call it "that." Have a nice day.
Common Sense
Thu Feb 9 2012 09:47
If your "reproductive choices are none of your employer's damn business" then how exactly does it make sense that they should pay for it? Once you get out of la la land, you'll learn that whoever pays the bills has the power. If you don't like that, then maybe you should start paying bills. Until then, just shut up and let the grown ups handle it.
Anonymous
Thu Feb 9 2012 09:05
By the reasoning in this article(taking the 1st ammendment issue out of it) McDonald's could(under the precidemt set in this policy) be forced to stop selling beef because some of their employees might be vegans. Is thaqt what you call fredom?
View full site