Many Catholic colleges decline to prescribe or cover birth control, citing religious reasons. Now they are under pressure to change. This month the Obama administration, citing the medical case for birth control, made a politically charged decision that the new health care law requires insurance plans at Catholic institutions to cover birth control without co-payments for employees, and that may be extended to students. But Catholic organizations are resisting the rule, saying it would force them to violate their beliefs and finance behavior that betrays Catholic teachings.
___
The administration’s rule has now run headlong into a dispute over values as Republican presidential contenders compete for the most conservative voters. In an election season that features Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, who have stressed their Catholic faith, scientific thinking on the medical benefits of birth control has clashed with deeply held religious and cultural beliefs.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, why risk alienating 68 million American Catholics? And I know, as the piece goes on to say:
Despite Catholic teachings, surveys have found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women, as in the general population, have used contraceptives.
I still think the ruling is needlessly provocative. The article continues:
At Catholic universities, some students support the right of the schools to uphold religious doctrine. But others, particularly professional and graduate students, have found the restrictions on birth control coverage onerous. Undergraduates are often covered by their parents’ insurance, but graduate students are usually on their own and are more likely to be married or in relationships and in regular need of birth control.
At some schools, students say the rules are so stringent they have a hard time getting coverage even if they need birth control pills for strictly medical reasons.
One recent Georgetown law graduate, who asked not to be identified for reasons of medical privacy, said she had polycystic ovary syndrome, a condition for which her doctor prescribed birth control pills. She is gay and had no other reason to take the pills. Georgetown does not cover birth control for students, so she made sure her doctor noted the diagnosis on her prescription. Even so, coverage was denied several times. She finally gave up and paid out of pocket, more than $100 a month. After a few months she could no longer afford the pills. Within months she developed a large ovarian cyst that had to be removed surgically — along with her ovary.
Come on; she couldn't find a hundred bucks a month to prevent a serious illness? I find that hard to believe. Where else was she spending her money?
Finally, I have to agree with the following:
Senior Catholic officials said that students at Catholic universities should know what to expect, and that those who disagree with the policies can choose to go elsewhere.
Sorry, fellow agnostics and Obama supporters; this is one time I'm afraid we'll have to part company.
1 comment:
Disagree strongly.
It's a public health issue. You can't let employers and insurers choose what they will and won't cover.
You establish a baseline ( from public health perspective ) and make everyone follow it.
As for the law graduate not having $100 month, she was put in a situation and made a bad bet. It propbably cost her insurer ( Georgetown? ) tens of thousands to remove her cyst/ovary instead of covering the pills. The pills were critical to her health, but were not covered. That is wrong.
The church - as a church - can do whatever it wants, but the church as an employer/insurer should have to provide the basic basket of coverages.
Otherwise you'll have employers not covering things that they don't like ( Walmart is against chemotherary, P&G is against viagra, McDonald's is against organ transplants ). It is the very definition of a "slippery slope".
Post a Comment