Politicization of Contraception

New York Times special columnist Gail Collins recently wrote that back when she had just gotten married, her mother-in-law sat down with her at the kitchen table and told her of a bitter event. Her mother-in-law, who was still young at the time, had already had several young children, and times were difficult. She went to see her church’s priest to confess that she and her husband had taken contraceptive measures. At once, the priest said to her, “You’re no better than a whore on the street.”

Collins was born in 1945. Judging from this, her mother-in-law’s story likely occurred in the ’40s. As she said, this was something that happened “a long time ago.” Today, a priest would not say that; however, churches — especially Catholic churches — still firmly oppose contraception. This is also why Obama’s recent policy requiring that Catholic churches and organizations provide their employees with health insurance that includes contraception has given rise to a political firestorm. Archbishops have protested one after another; the Republican Party has risen to attack it, calling it yet another war waged by Obama on religion. It is important to know that the United States’ Catholic population is nearly 80 million, and their political might is not to be underestimated. Under enormous political pressure, Obama quickly pulled back, proposing a compromise: Religious groups do not have to purchase health care for their employees that covers contraceptives, but the insurance company must offer contraceptive coverage to the employees. Although the revision of this detail has yet to be realized, this will likely mean that contraception costs of church employees will be fully covered.

What is the background of this policy? First, 99 percent of American women between the ages of 18 and 34 use contraceptive measures; yet, about half bear the burden of paying the associated costs. Those with lower income are at an even greater disadvantage. Secondly, churches play a decisive role in American society, having numerous organizations and employees. The main targets of this policy are Catholic universities and hospitals. While Catholic churches oppose contraception, according to surveys, almost all Catholic women have used contraceptive measures at some point in their lives. Two-thirds of Catholic women continue to use these measures.

Thirdly, Catholic organizations receive substantial financial subsidies from the federal government every year. In addition, they also receive the protection of being deemed tax-exempt charitable organizations, which in turn means that the federal government has the right to require Catholic organizations to take certain actions and comply with federal government regulations. Not to mention, Catholic organizations employ numerous non-Catholics, such as janitors, cooks, doctors and so on. These people do not have to recognize Catholic ideology, yet they must sacrifice contraception insurance because the Catholic Church opposes contraception, and are thus virtually discriminated against.

Two Opposing Opinions

Conservative opposition to this basically consists of two types. One type of opposition stems from the issue of religion and constitutional government. In the eyes of these people, the federal government’s forcing of church organizations to purchase insurance coverage for contraception is really forcing churches to violate the conduct required of them by their religious beliefs. This is equivalent to stripping churches and their adherents of their right to freely self-govern. Many even go so far as to say that this could ultimately become a lawsuit, which could be waged all the way up to the Supreme Court. As a result, Obama quickly retreated; the Supreme Court case that some had anticipated becoming “the judgment of the century” has thus probably been avoided. However, supporters of contraceptive insurance coverage reject this self-governance theory, posing the question: If a religion were to oppose “man interfering with God’s will,” and thus oppose medical treatments such as the transfusion of blood or other fluids, would employees of these religious organizations (regardless of whether they were believers of the religion) be refused the related insurance coverage?

The other source of conservative opposition is based on the market economy. For example, University of Chicago finance professor John Cochrane pointed out on The Wall Street Journal blog and microblog that what insurance covers are life’s uncertainties that are beyond a person’s realm of control, as well as those factors that cause great losses: car accidents, fires, diseases and so on. You pay the expense for this kind of insurance and receive in return a basic sense of stability in life. Insurance companies will not cover the cost of toothpaste; this small regular amount is entirely within the control and ability of the individual. If the cost of toothpaste must be added into the scope of health insurance, then it would be necessary to fill out forms for it and to pay a little more for insurance; competition in the toothpaste market would diminish, and in the end people would be paying more for their toothpaste. Presently, anyone with a cell phone can afford to buy birth control medication or condoms. Moreover, people with health care come from all industries and all occupations — they all have jobs, and most are not considered to be poor. The cost of contraceptives is already included in the cost of their insurance, and [the cost of] toothpaste is no different. He goes on to say that including coverage of consultations for women’s health, breastfeeding, domestic violence and so on leads to climbing insurance costs and a drop in efficiency.

Unfortunately, this market economy group cannot explain why twice-annual teeth cleanings are included in health insurance. Is this not a regular expense? In reality, if it was not covered by insurance, even fewer people would get a teeth cleaning on time, and the incidence of dental diseases would rise, thus also increasing dental expenses. Other developed countries all have national insurance and also often cover preventative consultations for women’s health, breastfeeding, domestic violence and other such issues. The result is that ordinary people’s lives are healthier and medical fees are much lower than in the United States.

This struggle doesn’t just end here. Obama, whose popularity is wavering, seeing that the economy is starting to improve and not wanting to create any new problems or invite criticism, immediately took a conciliatory stance. Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum was already nearly knocked out of the ring, but because he is the most religiously conservative candidate, he has assembled support within the Republican Party. He suddenly won the Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri primaries all in a row, causing a political earthquake within the Republican Party. From this the conservative vigor on this issue can be seen.

However, we cannot forget that in the U.S. election, women voters outnumber men. In the long term, this religious conservatism could hurt women voters. For women voters, sex is a shared issue between men and women. Unfortunately, men often do not want to wear protection, thus forcing women to single-handedly foot the bill for making love. If these costs were covered by insurance and spread out among all people, would this not make things more equal (with everyone sharing the costs equally)?

Reportedly, men within the Obama administration want to compromise, while the women want to continue the fight — they are divided into two distinct camps. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who is herself a practicing Catholic, declined to comment on the male-female divide within the cabinet. Yet, she pointed out that on the issue of contraception, the market discriminates against women, and public policy is needed to advance equality.

Due to his political popularity on the contraception issue, Santorum appears to be somewhat deranged. He even began to question the performance of women on the battlefield, saying that soldiers should be driven by nothing other than the desire to serve their country, but that women can be distracted from their duties by other emotions. This evaluation not only stirred dissatisfaction among women, but U.S. military officers could not help but speak out, saying that women have already been fighting for more than 10 years. They run the same risks as men and carry out the same missions, and have performed outstandingly. Many military posts, such as snipers, have strict requirements that must be met; while many men do not make the cut, there are quite a few women in these posts. The most qualified person will get the position, regardless of sex. If extremely conservative Santorum really becomes the Republican presidential nominee (which presently does not appear likely), he can rally together conservatives, but this will also make it that much easier for Obama to win re-election.