I will have spent $360 in birth control co-pays by August, through the Duke Student Health Insurance Plan.
I’m lucky. Paying for birth control has been well within my financial means. Moreover, as a private, functionally secular, albeit historically sort-of-Methodist institution, Duke has to be OK with their students having access to contraceptive methods. This access is granted through a medical insurance plan administered by Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Last August, under advice from the National Academy of Sciences, the Department of Health and Human Services decided that preventing unintended pregnancies is essential for women—psychologically, physically and emotionally. Kathleen Sebelius, the department’s secretary, announced an expansion of coverage, which includes increased funding for cancer screenings and counseling and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
That means that under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (you may have heard it called ObamaCare or RomneyCare or ObamneyCare), health insurance providers must provide government approved contraceptive methods, co-pay free. Next year, when I walk into the Duke Outpatient Pharmacy, I’ll finally feel like I’m considered a real person by America (in Canada, where I was born, I would never have to spend those $360).
The new rules do allow certain exemptions for religious institutions, like churches, on the grounds of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, however, is lobbying President Obama for an exemption to this expansion of preventive health care coverage for women, on behalf of Catholic universities, hospitals and social service agencies. President Obama has been weighing this decision since September; he has yet to announce what he’s going to do.
I’ve had to digest the concept that this debate isn’t a rational one but a religious one, as many issues are in America. Regardless, if I had President Obama’s ear I would tell him, vehemently, not to cave in and grant the exemption. Here’s why:
First, religiously affiliated institutions employ women who don’t personally identify as religious. Indeed, nearly one million people work at Catholic hospitals and about two million work and study at religious-ish universities; they would have to continue paying for their contraception, just because of where they happen to work. And, in 2009, 12.7 percent of the nation’s hospitals were Catholic institutions: In the name of freedom to practice one’s religion, other people’s freedom from religious coercion would be taken away.
I suspect that a lot of Catholics have used some form of birth control at some time in their lives. More importantly, it’s absurd that these institutions are demanding the freedom to impose their own beliefs on their employees. By refusing to cover contraception without co-pays, they’re sending the message: “We don’t want you to have sex and prevent yourself from getting pregnant in the process.” If you’re against abortions, then shouldn’t you be huge fans of contraceptive methods, which prevent abortions from happening? Seems counterintuitive.
Second, these universities receive millions of dollars in federal funding for research and these hospitals and clinics maintain a tax-exempt status. They are by no means islands that are not affected by and do not affect society. Call me crazy, but if you receive federal funds that means you’re subject to federal rules. No exceptions.
Third, expanding preventive coverage saves money. After having sat through the hundreds of Republican primary debates, it seems that all the candidates agree on two things: they’re Christian and they want to cut spending. Planned Parenthood and the Guttmacher Institute note that for every one dollar the government spends on contraception for low-income women, it saves four dollars in medical costs for treating unplanned pregnancies. Logically it would seem that Romney, Santorum and the rest should all hop on the contraception bandwagon—birth control prevents abortions AND saves money. It’s totally rational, except for the whole women-can’t-be-sexual-beings issue and those amorphous buzzwords: family values.
Finally, from a strategic standpoint, President Obama would be making a horrible PR move by conceding and granting these religious institutions an exemption from having to cover preventive women’s health care. Though the economic outlook is looking better of late, granting an exemption would only infuriate the President’s supporters and do little to change the minds of those who think he’s initiated a “war on religion” (in which, according to Rick Perry “gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school”).
Something is wrong in this country when some insurance companies fully cover Viagra but not contraception. The new rules conceived under the Affordable Care Act are a step in the right direction, but they need to be guarded, religiously.
Rather than a “war on religion,” this is just another aspect to the Republican Party’s “war on women.” President Obama shouldn’t let opponents of reproductive rights win this battle. If we don’t take a stand, the constant attacks on women’s health will never stop.
If you care about this issue, go online and sign NARAL’s and Planned Parenthood’s petitions telling President Obama that all women, regardless of where they work, need affordable birth control coverage. It takes three seconds.
Samantha Lachman is a Trinity junior. Her column runs every other Thursday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.