Being Right: Bizarre Birth Control



Emily Butler

President Obama and his administration are once again up to their liberal antics, in the form of (yes, you guessed it!) another mandate. This time, Mr. Obama plans to require employers to provide insurance that stipulates contraception coverage to its employees, at no extra charge to them. This new mandate includes religious schools and hospitals, fundamentally making it illegal for certain organizations to practice what they preach. On a broader scale, this new requirement is another way for the Obama Administration to continue its attack on religious freedom in this country. Proponents of the plan argue that this is a women’s rights issue. This is ludicrous. Con­traception is not illegal or limited in the United States. It is readily available to those who seek it, and this requirement is an unnecessary burden to organizations like religious charities, which are already facing decreased funding in a poor economic climate, aggravated by other failed Obama policies. Further, free birth control is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, no medical care is guaranteed, a detail that this administration seems to conveniently forget.

The controversial issue is most offensive to Catholics, who say that this rule requires them by law to violate religious beliefs. It’s as if Obama were forcing Jews to eat pork.

In fact, the plan is so controversial that many of Mr. Obama’s so-called democratic peers are condemning it as an affront to religious liberties. Several congressional Democrats have voiced concerns over the President’s contraception mandate, claiming it goes too far in violating traditions in federal law that protect conscious rights.

Telling of the striking opposition to this contraception rule, the President has been forced to compromise, now backpedaling on his initially bold mandate. Yet many view this revision simply as a gimmick to appease conservatives, one that won’t work because it doesn’t address the issue at stake: government intervention in religion. His revised plan doesn’t require opponents of birth con­trol to directly pay for contraception coverage, but instead requires insurance companies to do so while charging neither the employer nor the employee extra. In other words, the cost is to be spread amongst all policyholders in the form of higher premiums, courtesy of the President. In such a deli­cate economic climate, is it really a good idea to be placing an extra burden on American families?

Maybe this is the wrong question to ask, because it makes it seem that conservatives’ main con­cern over the birth control mandate is cost. The main worry is not financial, but rather faith-based. There is a big difference between being opposed to something because of a moral objection versus a financial concern. It is morally inconceivable to force an organization to purchase or provide something that contradicts its religious beliefs. Perhaps this new regulation is a ploy to appeal to independent female voters, a key constituency as the President gears up for a feeble attempt at re-election in the upcoming fall vote. Seems pretty pathetic. Simply put, the one-size-fits-all mentality to medical coverage that Obama seems to apply is clearly not working, nor is it acceptable to the American public. What the President fails to recognize is that America is first and foremost an independently-minded nation founded on principles of liberty, most notably religious freedom. The very reason settlers came to this land was in search of the freedom to express their religious beliefs, a principle Mr. Obama is seeking to destroy via his mandates. The America I want to live in is not one where Catholic charities are required by law to stand out on the street corner and hand out contraceptives, simply because the man occupying the White House thinks it’s a good idea. Government does not have the right to tell religious organizations what to do.

Contact Emily Butler at [email protected]