Today is eve prior to the March for Life Rally held every year down in Washington DC. Thousands will march around the mall and to the Supreme Court building to protest the landmark Roe V Wade decision made 39 years ago.
I didnt plan on blogging about this topic. And most people know how I feel about the topic of abortion. However, there are some people who are pro-life in every sense of the word who are up in arms regarding a recent White House health care decision.
I point to this article for clarification: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/white-house-stands-firm-in-birth-control-battle/2012/01/20/gIQAtZu6DQ_blog.html
The most important sentence in this article is this and I quote: ‘The rule upholds a requirement for nearly all employers to offer birth control without a co-pay. What’s more, the White House won’t expand exemptions for faith-based hospitals and universities, as religious groups had urged.’
As well as this video:
This is a HUGE win for women in the US, as well as the White House.
But you say, what does this have to do with the pro-life movement? Well, a large majority of this movement do not condone the use of birth control. One of my friends shared this article this morning: http://www.catholic-convert.com/2012/01/21/obama-gives-catholics-one-year-to-learn-to-violate-their-consciences/comment-page-1/#comment-313666
Im sorry, but no. You are not learning how to violate your consciences. You will learn that the majority of women need preventative health care and if you insure your workers, you must provide ALL the necessary healthcare to them. You cannot continue to pick and choose thru and cross out the parts of what you dont like.
The hypocrisy of this situation is that none of the same people freaking out about this, freaked out when men were able to get that little blue pill. Why the double standard? I dont know.
All I DO know is that women, no matter where they stand will remember that it took THIS administration to do what no other has done. And thats to make womens reproductive rights MANDATORY for every company that gives their employees health care.
January 22, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Well said Sheila, I don’t necessarily agree with all your views, but the right of a woman to have affordable access to reproductive health is paramount
January 22, 2012 at 1:31 pm
I definitely agree. And quite honestly, I am PERSONALLY pro-life. I totally understand the consequences should Roe V Wade be overturned.
Granted, I would love to live in a world where women dont need to get abortions and all children were loved, but I dont forsee that ever occurring.
January 22, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Thanks for this post!
I think those opposed to birth control should also be made aware that it is not solely used for that purpose. Many women use it these days as a way to balance thier hormones and cycles. It helps women who have extremely difficult menstraul cycles. Others, it helps bring hormones into a more balanced state. These are the primary reasons why my girlfriend is prescibed them and would be lost without low-cost birth control.
Some need to realize that there are other uses for these medications that go beyond religious-based beliefs on abortion.
Thanks again for the post.
January 22, 2012 at 4:10 pm
You are welcome.
I definitely agree on your points. I myself have had to use the pill for those exact same reasons. However, due to other health issues (blood clots) it would be out of the question now.
I am not against birth control. As a matter of fact, I took my own daughter at age 16 to get the pill. I became pregnant at a young age, and did not want her unprepared. There is NOTHING wrong with that.
I also had a hysterectomy in 97. Had I been working at a Catholic institution, this procedure would have required me to pay out of pocket for it, since it is considered sterilization.
My now exhusband had a vasectomy back in 95 because I have blood clotting issues and following my youngest childs birth I had a pulmonary embolism and having another child would have killed me. Again, that procedure would have been out of pocket had I worked for a Catholic institution.
Im glad that this administration has done this.
However, the exemption clause will cause discrimination. Many Catholic institutions can hire only Catholics in order to shirk this.
January 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm
The Obama administration is trampling on the religious liberties of faith-based organizations who view mandated sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients as a violation of their religious beliefs. 54% of Catholics voted for Mr. Obama in 2008. He will lose a chunk of that vote with this latest arrogant assault on freedom of religion. This is the single act that may cost him re-election. He is actually unifying the Catholic vote against him.
January 23, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Im sorry, but I disagree. Most of the Catholics I know DO use birth control.
And quite honestly, a good majority of conservatives believe in womens productive rights, as well as a good percentage of Independent voters.
This single act may actually HELP Obama get re-elected, as most American women do not want religious institutions determining what type of health care they can receive.
January 23, 2012 at 6:24 pm
You are correct that most Catholics do use birth control. However, what the Obama mandate does is force Catholic schools, hospitals, foundations, and universities to provide sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients without co-pay. In other words, their insurance must provide these services free, even if these Catholic employers don’t want to because it violates their religious convictions as enshrined in the First Amendment; even if their Catholic employees don’t want these services because of their religious convictions. This isn’t a “woman’s reproductive health” issue, it is an issue of religious liberty.
January 23, 2012 at 6:42 pm
QuinersDiner
Again I disagree on every point.
If an institution wants to ensure their employees agree with their philosophies, they should just hire those that believe what they believe. However, not EVERY Catholic will agree with those choices and Im pretty sure that will lead to lawsuits on the basis of discrimination.
Employers should not be allowed to pick and choose which parts of an insurance policy that women should receive. And where was your trampling argument when men got their viagra, but womens reproductive choice was discriminated against?
And NO, the First Amendment does not give a religious organization the right to dictate what someones health care choices are. It allows INDIVIDUALS to be any religion they choose to be without governmental intrusion. Go back and read that Consutition again Sir.
And no. This *IS* about womens health. This affect millions of women-religious or not.
And quite honestly, since you have an avatar of a male, I dont think this will affect you.
January 23, 2012 at 7:04 pm
Let me ask you something. If the Obama administration mandated abortion services, do you think Catholic and other faith-based organizations should be required to provide them to their employees, even if they believe that abortion kills a human being?
January 23, 2012 at 7:11 pm
First – just because there is a mandate to provide the service, does not mean those who these organizations employ would utilize them. No one is forced to go out – get the pill, an abortion or anything of the sort. No one is forcing anyone to use these services. But for those who DO choose to, they should have that option.
Second – Last I checked abortion is LEGAL and safe in the care of a trained physician.
And lastly, You should know that I am personally pro-life, but my own beliefs should not be forced onto others.
There is a ‘wall of separation’ between church and state for a reason.