"The Catholic Church objects to being told to pay for something that it morally objects to. Why should the government make Catholic schools, hospitals and charities pay for abortion inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception? ... There is no reason it has to involve the Catholic Church other than pure spite." -- Washington Post commenterI don't think it's "pure spite" or "war." Lots of people seem to want to ramp up the rhetoric, a problem not confined to one side of the dispute.
There are many non-spiteful reasons for wanting insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Here are a few: People like to control when they have children without foregoing their sex lives. To many, it doesn't make sense to carve out a special exception for birth control when many other medications/procedures are covered. Some women (a few) need hormones to control diseases like ovary cysts. None of these are spiteful or war-like reasons to cover contraceptives.
The decision about covering contraceptives pits two worthwhile goals against each other:
- The usefulness of contraceptives is similar to the usefulness of hypertension medicines, and perhaps should be treated in the same manner by insurers.
- Religious employers don't want to be forced to pay for medications that they have a long-standing doctrinal objections to.
That the government and employers are involved is an artifact of our ridiculous health care insurance system where the employer pays. If we could transition to private/individual-funded choices, then we could pick our own insurance based on our own consciences. That would be much better. Amen.
Praying . . . that the contraceptives keep working.
Update 3/14/12. The Obama administration isn't trying to end religion or shut down the Catholic Church. But it sure feels like some alliances of conservatives are trying to completely shut down Planned Parenthood. If the Catholic Church was trying to do this directly, people would be up in arms.