Let me say first that this is not a simple issue. I wish the Republican presidential candidates weren't pretending that it is.
And let me say, too, that I admire a lot about the Catholic Church. It has been a leader in human rights in many, many areas. Catholics have literally given their lives in service to oppressed people.
But the church continues to have a blind spot when it comes to issues of women's health and women's rights.
And that blind spot is playing out right now in the backlash, by the Catholic Church (joined by some evangelical Protestants and by Republican politicians), against the Obama administration's stand on coverage of contraceptives in health insurance.
The administration is insisting that hospitals, schools, and charities operated by religious institutions must include contraception coverage in health-insurance plans for their employees. To the Catholic Church, preventing pregnancy is morally wrong; therefore, providing insurance that covers pregnancy prevention is morally wrong.
No one is forcing the church to provide contraceptives or to prescribe them. Its health insurance simply must cover their cost. (Is that forcing the church to fund something it believes is morally wrong? Many of us have funded a war that we believe, quite deeply, to be morally wrong.)
Birth control pills are expensive. And if the church's policy stands, women employees who can't afford contraceptives will have to risk bearing children whether they want to or not, whether they can afford to or not, whether they are physically and emotionally able to or not.
Pregnancy can be a wonderful condition. It can also be a dangerous, life-threatening condition.
Nor are birth-control pills prescribed solely as contraceptives. They have been effective in treating endometriosis and other serious women's health problems. A Guttmacher Institute study released in November found that 58 percent of women taking birth-control pills were taking them for non-contraceptive medical needs.
Predictably, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum have seized on this issue. We're well into an election year, and everything will be politicized for the next nine months. But seriously: is the Republican Party now against not only abortion rights but also against giving women the right to decide whether they will get pregnant?
(Surely, surely, the Republican candidates do not believe what they are saying - except Rick Santorum, who would like to let states outlaw contraception.)
All of this, of course, plays right into the conservative attack on that important health-care provider and advocate for women's health-care rights, Planned Parenthood. And last week, as the firestorm about the contraceptives built, another one broke out: the Komen Foundation's decision to stop its funding for Planned Parenthood's breast-cancer screening.
Fortunately, when the Komen Foundation news broke, Planned Parenthood supporters rallied, flooding the agency with funding and sending protests to the Komen Foundation. And late last week, the Komen Foundation backed down. It will restore the funding.
The Komen drama demonstrated that there's plenty of support for both women's health care and Planned Parenthood. But I'm under no illusion that the attacks on both won't continue. And women's health will remain an election issue, with Republicans willing to deny basic rights to half the population in order to win conservative money and votes.
In her Wall Street Journal column on Saturday, Peggy Noonan accused President Obama of "affronting the church and blithely threatening its great institutions" and said Catholics will rise up against Obama, defeating him on this issue and, perhaps, in November.
Maybe. Or maybe Obama decided, cynically, that he needed to score points with non-Catholic liberals, and that he wouldn't get the core Catholic vote anyway.
But maybe he took this stand because it was the right thing to do.
Which it was.
With all due respect, the Catholic Church is not the sole determiner of morality. Women's health and women's rights are moral issues, too.
Comments for "URBAN JOURNAL: Religion, politics, and women's health" (13)
City Newspaper is not responsible for the content of these comments. City Newspaper reserves the right to remove comments at their discretion.
Tim Shea said on Feb. 08, 2012 at 11:54am
There are a number of Supreme Court decisions concerning separation of church and state. Including one which refused to protect not a secular interface but a litugical process of native americans which involved a drug . As for this:
Peggy Noonan accused President Obama of "affronting the church and blithely threatening its great institutions" the Catholic church has been assured by their very own clerical hot line that the "Gates Of Hell will not prevail against it" so why sweat a mere presidental guideline.
steve said on Feb. 09, 2012 at 11:29am
Any barrier which prevents the natural process of life to occur is immoral (as should be) and ought be illegal. Sexual activity is a choice. A blithe "women's rights" stance is not appropriate. Women have been given the right by God to bear children. It must be given as much respect as possible. God did not however, give women the right to deny the natural process of birth with the exceptions of miscarriages and stillbirths. Holding idenity as a Catholic means believing in the Catheism and obeying the Magistrium with a full and open heart. Our eternal souls are far more important than some blathing nonsense by a Non-believer. If you can not bring yourself to believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church and to obey them as the word of God, the Father the Almighty, then you ought to declare yourself a secular humanist and be done with it.
Joana F. Arch said on Feb. 10, 2012 at 1:27am
About Mary Anna Towler's Urban Journal, Vol. 41 No 22
Yes, it IS a SIMPLE issue. I detest having to spend moments of my life reading editorials such as “Religion, Politics, and women's health”, but I understand that someone must write such because of the deplorable governance under which we reside.
It made me pace back and forth.
It compelled me to write MY THOUGHTS.
I haven't had health care in over 15 years. I have been mentally hygiene arrested twice in the past 10 years during manic episodes. I lost employment, worked very hard at odd cleaning jobs and collecting cans until I was lucky enough to get hired as a waitress which gave me enough money to move into a friends apartment without needing a security deposit. I tried to get temporary assistance as I was homeless for a period but I didn't qualify since I missed an appointment at the welfare building? I think?
I don't remember- it's been so long. I make $20 a week too much to get family health plus.
I don't care. I hate insurance companies anyway. They are FOR PROFIT and affect the health care provider's choices in treatment. The State that employs the most insurance company provider's staff in the nation, Connecticut, did away with their paying an insurance company for MediCade recipients, and they pay the health care provider's directly. Aint that something?
But .. the main reason I write is for my sacrifice. I was pregnant. I was unemployed, out of the psychiatric ward and entirely broke. Planned Parenthood couldn't give me care because I was missing a pay stub from 4 weeks prior- that I couldn't procure.
Catholic Family Charity couldn't help me figure out my finances without a $40.00 fee (that I did not have to spare)... I did not have enough money to eat, pay rent or anything and I was in the deepest depression of my life. It took all I had to get out of bed to go to waitress at the job I got hired to do.. The man involved was a welfare recipient that I met “out of the blue”. He has no money to spend on a baby or on an abortion!
I sold my car for $700.00 and paid for a medical abortion with the money.
I felt like it was the moral thing to do. I still mourn for my “yolk sac”, as I had a biologically (mainly) driven , Motherly love for it. The Compass Care health care place which is a “Christian” organization, gave me a free ultrasound and then prayed for me and the life inside of me. . . but they couldn't help me with rent or counseling for my untreated bi-polar disorder.
I detest insurance companies. I detest Planned Parenthood-- as they are FOR PROFIT. I ABSOLUTLEY DETEST PRO-CLAIMED CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE ANTI-ABORTION !!!!!!!!!!
Since my loss- and the”world's” loss of my ill conceived/ sinfully out of wed-lock yolk sac I have volunteered at local food banks on the holidays and worked on being my own therapist via on-line research. I no longer date the aforementioned “gentleman”, but we are still friendly via e-mails.
I just want to put it out there... that even without my fertilized egg being brought into this world as as fully individual human being destined for a life of poverty and unrest... THERE ARE MANY YOUNG KIDS RIGHT UNDER THE NOSE OF EVERY PERSON IN EVERY CITY OR TOWN THAT ARE POOR, HUNGRY, NEGLECTED AND IN NEED OF MORE ATTENTION FROM THE REPLUCICAN, DEMOCRAT, CHRISTIAN AND EVRYONE ELSE GROUP OF THOSE WHO JUDGE "IF THEY ARE TO BE A PRODUCTIVE TAX PAYER AND CONTRIBUTOR TO SOCIETY. Thank you for your time.
Signed, A Mother at Heart, hoping for the system to change from that of greed to that of care for the greater good of all beings alive.
Tom Janowski said on Feb. 11, 2012 at 10:51am
Mary Anna Towler’s assessment of the current issue of the Catholic Church, health insurance and contraception for women covered all the details of this topic--nicely. My views on the topic are not nearly as charitable.
The Catholic Church"any church for that matter"relies upon members who voluntarily accept and adhere to church doctrine. A fact, therefore, should not be overlooked. Adherence of church doctrine is on the decline and has been for a long time"a very long time. This fact makes the marriage of religion and conservative politics a happy one.
With conservative politicians gladly picking up the torch for organized religion, the churches see a way to have church doctrine enforceable by law instead of simply being voluntary. Politicians see a way of getting votes. I’m pretty sure I saw a Rick Santorum bumper sticker that read “Santorum for President and Pope”.
Fortunately, President Obama has come up with a solution that allows the virtues of the Catholic Church to remain intact. The Catholic Church will not have to provide (as an employer) health insurance that would allow women to get free contraception"at least it will appear that way on the surface. This virtue will join the many other virtues still intact in the Catholic Church, such as no Catholic has ever gotten a divorce; no Catholic has ever used birth control; no Catholic has ever had an abortion; no Catholic has ever committed adultery; no Catholic has ever been gay (and Priests have never sexually molested boys); and the Catholic Church and those with conservative political views have never been hypocritical.
Of course President Obama’s action means he is pandering for the religious vote just like conservatives. This is an election year after all.
Troll Whisperer said on Feb. 11, 2012 at 12:37pm
Mary Anna, your statement, "[t]o the Catholic Church, preventing pregnancy is morally wrong" is flat wrong. Call it "Vatican roulette" if you wish; the hierarchy's beef is with artificial birth control." Your post cites the kitchen sink (Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, Komen Foundation, the Republicans, etc.) , except for the core issue: religious freedom. Disagree with the Church - most American Catholics do - but there was just reason so many moderate and liberal Catholics are upset with the initial Obama about-face. Since then, Obama sensibly came to a good compromise.
Steve, aren't we lucky to live in the era when the Church forgave Galileo for his "heresy" of 400 years ago? Sir, the notion that the laity are supposed to act as sheep ended in the 16th Century, and today it is hardly the laity that needs reforming. And even the modern, post-Vatican II supports natural family planning, and at last now the official position is sex is not a bad thing. Too bad they don't believe it in their hearts. This reinforces the belief among many Catholics that it will be the women of the Church who will save the Church in this next century. More and more men have made this conclusion as well. And show me anywhere in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John where a woman cannot perform the Eucharist. I bet they did once, and did it well, where it did work. You might receive some insight by talking to some of the Sisters of Mercy or Sisters of St. Joseph.
Fed Up said on Feb. 11, 2012 at 4:58pm
It is becoming increasingly evident to me that the government is coming awfully close to stepping over the boundary that divides church and state. What right does President Obama and liberal "believers" have to question individual religious beliefs? I am very uncomfortable with the direction our government is taking because it seems every day it is forcing me to make choices between my "religious beliefs" and its "social beliefs". Suddenly, it feels like the government is the ultimate "conscience" that we must all abide by. I thought I had freedom of religion in this country and that I could make decisions based on my church's value system and the belief system I have held since a child. I am increasingly concerned about paying taxes to a government that does not respect my religious beliefs.
Troll Whisperer said on Feb. 12, 2012 at 1:08pm
Apologies; make that: brother Steve.
Suzanne Stack said on Feb. 12, 2012 at 6:22pm
I read Mary Anna Towler faithfully and am usually impressed with her grasp on her subject, even if I don't always agree with her. But this time, surely, surely, she does not believe what she is saying. But alas, it seems she is in the company of many others with misconceptions of the Catholic Church and the issues at stake here.
The Catholic Church is NOT morally opposed to preventing pregnancy. It believes that sex has two purposes: for the bonding and union of the husband and wife, and for the procreation of the fruit of that love (i.e. children). The Church opposes separating either of these two purposes by artificial means, but is fine with couples spacing their children through Natural Family Planning, which anyone who promotes women's health should support as it gives wonderful insight to a woman's health and fertility. So no woman is forced to bear children when it is not prudent.
Under the HHS mandate, the Catholic Church IS being forced to go against her conscience and provide contraception (the Pill being a double whammy as it can be an abortifacient, to say nothing of the "morning after pill", which is clearly intended to be used as an abortifacient). Whether religious institutions are required to provide and pay for contraception directly through their insurance plan, or the insurance companies provide the service, the employers will certainly be bearing the burden of the cost through increased premiums. While I would like to be able to parse out what my tax dollars go for (I'm no fan of war, either!), it is not the same as contracting for services that go against my conscience. Yet that is what religious institutions are being mandated to do.
As for the statement that birth control pills are often used for other medical conditions, there are many drugs that have several uses. Does that add to the argument that they should be provided for free? If so, then what about any other drug used to treat a medical condition? And Ms. Towler neglected to mention the many side effects of the Pill that should give one pause before taking it for any reason!
One of the most glaring inaccuracies came in the section about Planned Parenthood, who has NEVER provided breast cancer screening. They only do referrals, so why Komen gives them so much support in the first place is great cause for investigation.
Mandating an individual or institution to violate their conscience is never the right thing to do. But Ms. Towler got one thing right: "Women's health and women's rights are moral issues, too." Which the Catholic Church fully supports and promotes in her teachings.
steve said on Feb. 13, 2012 at 8:29am
The Standard Method is a proven method as it requires close communication and impeccable planning of a woman's menstrual cycle by the couple, something most people with any sense of dignity, propriety, and good taste will not discuss with the proverbial man on the street. And certainly Catholics have: been homosexual; committed grave sins, inculding murder, even in name of the state; committed divorce and adultery; and sadly support the death penalty.
THAT was not my point. My point is that you wouldn't run for office if you are an anarchist, because anarchists don't believe in government; you wouldn't eat meat if you are a vegetarian because vegetarians do not eat meat by defintion; and you aren't Catholic if you don't support the tenets of the Church. You may feel free to become a Presbyterian or a Methodist, or one of the other so-called "liberal" denominations where ministers openly declare in church that you don't have to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ was the Son of God and still be Christian. Heck, you can take the Holy Eucharist whether you ate five minutes before or observed the Fast of The Hour. You can believe the rich have no obligation to help the poor, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and heal the sick; you can believe illegal, preemptive war is A-okay; you can believe execution for murderers actually stops others from murdering because they don't want to murdered by the State in thirty years after all their appeals have been exhausted; and you can believe it is perfectly acceptable to have sexual relations without any emotional commitment and simply "abort" one of God's most precious gifts, disposing of him or her as you would a pesky rodent. So happy to hear that people who shriek about "dignity" for the working person, have none for innocent babies who's only crime was to be concieved by their ill-prepared parents.
Mary Anna Towler said on Feb. 13, 2012 at 10:50am
Troll and Suzanne Stark are correct: the Catholic Church - as I knew - isn't opposed to 'preventing pregnancy.' It's opposed to 'artificial means' of pregnancy prevention. Poor choice of words on my part - as, maybe, was the use of 'screening' related to breast cancer. I was referring to breast exams, which Planned Parenthood does provide. As Suzanne notes, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms.
John said on Feb. 23, 2012 at 5:33pm
My heavens!!! How the Bible scholars and theologians come out of the woodwork during an election year lately, anyone else notice? Another area people enjoy parading are the "Founding Fathers", in keeping with that line I would like to share a quote with you.
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and
irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the
animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the
difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and
distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the
enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least
have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never
again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the
peace of society."- George Washington
Kurt said on Mar. 02, 2012 at 3:52pm
I would Love to see these Catholics give up their Church's Tax Exempt status since they don't want Government influence. It might even help local And national tax payers burden. What a Novel thought; I am forced to Support them with my tax dollars Even though I am not a member, AND I CANT OPT OUT ! !
sean said on Mar. 03, 2012 at 12:00pm
Respectfully to those who take their faith seriously, this is a phony controversy dreamed up by the Heritage Foundation. Health insurance to cover contraception is not a Constitutional right, but should not be a large financial burden on the Church. I agree with Kurt; churches get tax-exempt status. Let them pay THEIR fair share. If the churches in Rochester paid what they should every year, my guess is the city's deficit would be easily halved. I also agree with Tom, but with a slight twist: No Catholic supports the right to preemptive war and no Catholic supports the death penalty. Oh yeah, wait a darn-tootin' moment here: Pat Buchanan, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, Rick Santorum, John Boehner, and of course Newt Gingrich, a man who lectures on the sanctity of marriage after he divorced his first wife in hospital, his second because he was having an affair with intern WHILE impeaching a President FOR THE EXACT SAME THING. And anyone takes this party remotely serious anymore? If a Republican lectures me on the so-called "sanctity of marriage" anymore, they damn well ought be committed
Leave A Comment
Respond on Your Blog
Create an Account
or
Login
If you have a City Account you can not only post comments, but you can also respond to articles in your own City Blog. It's just another way to make your voice heard.