Contraception in America

I am SO. Sick. And tired. Of the "Why should we pay for women to have sex?" rhetoric that the conservative 24-hour news station which needs not be named here has been spouting so incessantly. It's so flipping degrading to women, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. The Rush Limbaugh mess makes the entire discussion even more absurd, but I'm pretty sure that most thinking people already know that he's a giant ass so I won't belabor that issue here.

Like it or not, the Pill is a commonly prescribed medication, and one that is prescribed for a whole host of reasons that go far beyond some slutty college coed's insatiable desire for sex. Whether it's excruciating ovarian cysts, anemia-inducing menstrual flow, or an underlying condition which makes pregnancy life-threatening, there is a long list of alternative reasons that the Pill is used. But what I really want to know is when it became acceptable to label women who use contraception as sluts...?!?! God forbid a woman (who has no moral convictions to the contrary) use modern medicine to help prevent unwanted pregnancy. It is not at all outrageous, in the modern world, for a woman to expect that she ought to be able to have sex without getting pregnant. That doesn't make her a whore - it makes her a naturally sexual being, as God created her, who happens not to be prepared to have a child at the present moment.

Now, I have written a lot about the harmful side effects of the Pill and the reasons why I believe that the medical establishment ought to be far more cautious with it, but the reality is that for some women, the medical benefits outweigh the risks. That's a judgement call that we must make with any medication that we choose to take - they all have side effects to consider. The reality is that the vast majority of women will never experience most of the scary side effects that the Pill can cause. That doesn't change the fact that women should be much better educated when it comes to what those side effects might be, and that there are far healthier alternatives about which we should also be educating women. HOWEVER, the media has no business lambasting a woman who has chosen that route for herself.

As far as whether contraceptives should be considered a part of "preventative healthcare", it is undeniable that the insurance system in this country (and the federal government, via medicare) is overburdened with the high cost of prenatal care and labor and delivery expenses - not to mention the ensuing pediatric care - when women who would otherwise choose not to have a child get pregnant unexpectedly. Some women experience very costly complications during and after pregnancy, children are often born prematurely or with special medical needs... the business of pregnancy and childbirth can be very expensive for insurance companies. From a public heath standpoint, contraception has the potential to be tremendously beneficial if it is made more universally available. It makes logical sense to include it as part of what is considered "preventative care" when the larger goal is healthcare reform that reduces the overall cost of insurance and medical care on a national scale.

There is a very important discussion to be held when it comes to the impact of the contraception mandate on the Catholic Church. To be honest, I'm not quite sure how I feel. On the one hand, the Church employs non-Catholics, and the Church receives federal money (and doesn't pay taxes). They would be paying for an insurance plan that covers contraception in the event that the subscriber chooses to use it, just as they provide a salary to employees that may choose to use it to purchase contraceptives. I know that's not exactly the same thing, but if it is becoming the nature of insurance plans to include contraceptive coverage, and as an employer the Church must offer their employees insurance coverage, it seems like one of those "necessary evil" kind of issues. Just as a cash salary can be used for Church-disapproved activities (because it is the nature of cash that it can be used to buy anything), so health insurance can also be used to pay for things that the church may not approve of. Perhaps that's just becoming a reality of modern health care that the Church must accept. On the other hand, I can appreciate that this is a change in policy that the Church would rather not see applied to them, and for very good reason. There is a serious moral conflict there. I certainly don't have an answer and I don't pretend to be prepared to issue an opinion or an argument for either side of this debate. I tend to be more liberal in my politics than many Christians, and I tend to err on the side of greater liberty for the general population (as opposed to protecting or promoting my particular religious convictions). I believe that religious freedom gives all Americans the right to conduct their lives beyond the confines of any one religious ideology. I believe that the first amendment was meant to protect Americans from becoming subject to any one religious majority, not to exempt a religious institution from the laws of the land. I know that many of my friends will respectfully disagree with me on that point, but that's where my point of view on this topic originates.

At the end of the day, my main concern in this debate is the blatant degradation of women that is suddenly being perpetrated by the conservative media. I'm all for empowering women with information regarding the risks associated with the Pill and the alternatives to chemical contraceptives (which ultimately bring women into closer harmony with their fertility, further empowering them to respect and cherish their femininity). HOWEVER, it's just not OK in my book for contraceptive users to be labeled as sex-crazed sluts. I'd be SO interested to see how different this discussion would be if men could get pregnant too ;-)