(Disclaimer–I am recovering from the flu, and only have a few minutes to bang out this post, so I am going to apologize in advance for the gross lack of citation. But that’s what Google is for, right?)
This isn’t exactly normal fare for this blog, but the brouhaha about forcing religious organizations to offer birth control as part of their insurance packages is making me shake my head.
Oh, I understand that people should not be forced to pay for things that go against their values. I wouldn’t be happy financing abortifacients (although undoubtably, many of us pour money into pots that do).
But.
As a woman whose insurance (when I have had it) has generally come from religious organizations, the idea that a woman could be denied family planning coverage because her husband’s employer didn’t want to cover it left me rather aghast.
I get it, yes. But that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
Here’s what I find really interesting, though. While the highly-publicized statistic that 98% of Roman Catholic women have used birth control may skew high, it don’t think the revelation that the vast majority of religious women in America do use birth control on a regular basis is particularly shocking.
What is shocking, to me at least, is the way some people try to dismiss this fact as irrelevant to the issue.
Because here’s the thing. Religious organizations are more than just “organizations”–they are part of the capital “C” Church.
So am I, and the whatever-percent of Roman Catholic women who do use contraception.
I realize that there are people who believe that using contraception is somehow immoral. But perhaps we could have some conversation about this? Is it not a bit ironic that Roman Catholic policy on this issue is, as I understand it, set by celibate men?
Of course there is the old “If you don’t like it you can leave” argument. But really? Is a person supposed to give up their religious affiliation because they disagree with a handful of uber-powerful leaders about an issue that is not central to the gospel? I suppose it’s easy enough for Protestants to say, since most of us could switch churches or denominations without too much fuss, but what’s a good Catholic girl to do?
Is the Church an “organization” whose agenda is set by powerful men in isolated board rooms? Or is the Church an assembly of people who have surrendered themselves to the lordship of Christ?
Well, there are probably different opinions about that (particularly in churches that are big on apostolic procession), but I vote the latter.
I do realize that most of the religious opposition to the proposed reforms is on the basis of maintaining religious freedom. (Or, let’s be honest, the fact that some of them are P.O.’d about the government mandating insurance coverage at all.) And like I said, I do get it. But can I just say that I find the “religious freedom” rhetoric grating when the “freedoms” being bestowed are in fact restrictions imposed by a tiny, powerful minority that does not give voice to the people most impacted by said restrictions? I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, I’m just saying it’s grating.
If the controversy was about the deity of Christ or the inspiration of scripture, by all means, stand firm! But birth control???
Thus ends my opinionated, feverish (literally) rant.
Jenny, I hear where you’re coming from, I do, but aren’t you debating a seperate issue here? That being whether the Church should allow/fund birth control, abortions, and the like.
The issue as I see it is whether the United States government can make a law abridging the freedom of religious expression or not. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” This was one of the ten first amendments required by the states when this country was first established formally. This supposed health care reform law goes against the first amendment completely in regards to free exercise.
I believe whether or not the majority of religious women use bc is a seperate issue to be worked out within the church, not by supporting a law which tramples on our fundamental human rights to worship, believe, and live as we would like.
I agree with you about the religious freedom element. However, the issue gets sticky when a church the size of a large nation, governed by men in Rome, gets to dictate “religious freedoms” that their American adherents generally don’t want–freedoms that are in fact restrictions that could have a serious practical and financial impact on people’s lives. That’s the point I was trying to make. It’s a funny definition of “religious freedom.”
Wow, Jen! Way to wade right into the deep waters of the free exercise and establishment clauses! You’ve really articulated well some of the tensions inherent in this part of the health care debate. Perhaps fever-induced rants are not so bad after all?
Tim
P.S. Hope you and the rest of the fam are back in tip top shape soon!
Tim, I don’t think I waded in–I think I tumbled in in a Nyquill-induced stupor. ;-D
P.S. Thanks!
Well you’re doing a good job keeping your head above water!
I’m glad you’re blogging about this. I think you make a good point, one that I’ve had trouble articulating as I think about this issue. “Forbidding” women to have any sort of control over their reproductive lives (except endlessly “no-ing” their husbands/partners if they absolutely don’t want children) doesn’t feel a bit like freedom, and protecting such “freedom” irks me. It also drives home how incredibly FIXATED the Church (and I mean Catholic Church w/ that capital C, not Body of Christ Church) is on ANY issue that touches on women and sexuality. We NEVER hear this kind of outcry about war. Heck, we didn’t hear this kind of outcry about the sexual abuse of children (from the public, yes, from the magisterium, no.) So really, the outcry only happens when the issue is centered on “protecting” women’s “duty” to conceive, but not when protecting a child’s right not to be abused by those in power.
Yes, it is grating. And I would go so far as to say it is wrong. But I’m Catholic, so I’m allowed to say things like that.
I blogged about it, too, and like you, I DO see “their” side, the implications for religious freedom, etc., etc. But on a very gut level, my hackles go up and I just can’t get on board. (http://youngadultcatholics-blog.com/2012/02/01/the-bishops-vs-hhs-what-do-you-think/)
I was hoping you would comment, Lacey! It’s very much a “gut-level” thing for me, too–the whole thing just feels icky, all the way around. It isn’t so much about health insurance, because basic family planning is relatively easy to secure (where I live, anyway)–what really irks me is the outrage being expressed about, as you put it, “protecting” women’s “duty” to conceive. I mean, thanks, but no thanks, guys (and this is coming from a woman with four kids).
Great post, Lacey! I can’t wait to get my hands on your book!!! Squee!!!
Hi! I’m new to the blogging neighborhood. I would like to add a new ingredient into the mix — that is, that many believers are obsessed with womb-and-tomb issues, but ignore our responsibilities to take care of babies who were not aborted, terminally-ill elderly people who need round-the-clock care, etc. These same believers are often staunch republicans who vote pro-lifers into office with poor track records of passing bills that would help people. Perhaps those politicians should be called pro-birthers, because pro-life goes beyond the womb.
Amen, Anne!!!
How do I download my picture onto the blog?
Anne, I think I depends on how you sign in–do you have a WordPress account or a Google account? They’ll usually let you upload an “avatar” or “gravatar” or “profile picture”.
Wow – great comment! Love this: “many believers are obsessed with womb-and-tomb issues but ignore our responsibilities…” Exactly! As an Australian Christian I am often perplexed by the US Christian seeming obsession with abortion as a moral issue (don’t get me wrong – not saying abortion in general is right here…) but there are SO many other issues we should be concerned about. Child deaths by abuse are skyrocketing in the US – where’s the outcry??
Interesting post BTW Jenny!
Great points. Kudos to Jenny and Lacey!
Thanks Lauren! Sticky subject…
Hi Jenny!
I am a Catholic and I know I can’t explain all our beliefs and teachings easily and in this limited space but I’ll put in my 2 cents. The Catholic Church is not full of rules made up by old men in stuffy rooms, it’s based on the teachings of Christ and handed down by the Apostles, which is why there has been no acceptance of birth control by us. We are asked to be open to life and trust that God is in control of every part of our life. This does not mean to be irresponsible but Natural Family Planning is encouraged to plan our families and space our children. Did you know that couples who use NFP have almost a zero divorce rate? I’m sure you have a busy life but if you have time read Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul vi, in this encyclical he predicted what would happen if artificial birth control became widely accepted which would be a general lowering of moral standards, women would be reduced to objects to satisfy men’s desires and there would be an abuse of power by public authorities to name a few predictions.
The HHS mandate would force Catholic employers to pay for something we have stood against for 2000 years. If a woman Catholic or otherwise works for a Catholic employer she can use birth control that is her choice, but cannot expect her employer to pay for it. As Catholics we have not only the right to worship God but the right to practice our faith.
Thanks for the soap box. I will subscribe to your blog, I like it!
Thanks for adding your perspective, Beth! I’m so glad you did. Since I’ve never been part of a church that has an apostolic leadership model, I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how issues like this are dealt with. It’s SO complicated!!!
I do feel like I should say that I absolutely respect the Roman Catholic stance on artificial birth control. I just didn’t like the way some politicians seemed to be leveraging the brouhaha for altogether different purposes. You’d make a much better spokesperson than some of them! ;-D
So glad you like the blog!