Much has already been said by other Catholics in response to the Heath and Human Services mandate. That being the case I don't want to be repetitive, but there are a few points that I don't think have received enough attention in the popular narrative surrounding the debate.
The Obama administration’s argument that contraception should be a part of every employer-sponsored health plan rests on its belief that contraception is a “preventive” service, and one that all women are entitled to regardless of their own ability to afford it. From this perspective, Catholic opposition to contraception is misguided, with the pro-birth control Guttmacher Institute insisting that the “debate over contraception has long been settled in real-life America.” Whether or not the administration’s Department of Health and Human Services backs down before implementation is not as interesting as the fact that there remains an irreconcilable chasm between it and the Catholic Church. Whereas the Church is content to enjoy an accommodating exemption clause, the progressive policy movement sees the conflict as a zero-sum game. To allow any institution to deny its employees what they’ve come to see as a human right can only be a temporary compromise, perpetuating a less-than-ideal state of affairs.
The Obama administration’s argument that contraception should be a part of every employer-sponsored health plan rests on its belief that contraception is a “preventive” service, and one that all women are entitled to regardless of their own ability to afford it. From this perspective, Catholic opposition to contraception is misguided, with the pro-birth control Guttmacher Institute insisting that the “debate over contraception has long been settled in real-life America.” Whether or not the administration’s Department of Health and Human Services backs down before implementation is not as interesting as the fact that there remains an irreconcilable chasm between it and the Catholic Church. Whereas the Church is content to enjoy an accommodating exemption clause, the progressive policy movement sees the conflict as a zero-sum game. To allow any institution to deny its employees what they’ve come to see as a human right can only be a temporary compromise, perpetuating a less-than-ideal state of affairs.
It’s no surprise then that the administration’s recent statement in defense of the new mandate opens by describing contraception as a preventive service:
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012.Much of the reaction to the mandate has rightly framed the conflict as an issue of religious liberty. It would also be helpful, however, to deconstruct the administration’s argument by considering whether contraception ought to be considered a preventive service in the first place. Contraception is essentially a voluntary intervention in a freely chosen behavior, intended to prevent that behavior’s natural outcome. Unless conception is considered an unforeseen and undesirable side-effect of sexual intercourse, contraception cannot be considered preventive medicine.
Under this policy, women who want contraception will have access to it through their insurance without paying a co-pay or deductible. But no one will be forced to buy or use contraception.This is true in the sense that no woman will be required to utilize her access to contraception, but employers everywhere will be forced to buy it for those who do. What the administration has failed to address is the fact that, for Catholics, compliance with the moral law does not end at personally abstaining from immoral behavior, but also demands they not participate in facilitating that behavior for others. It's not just the hierarchical Church and her institutions who will face a conflict either, but every conscientious Catholic working in business and the public square.
On January 20th, Secretary Sebelius announced that certain religious organizations including churches would be exempt from paying their insurers to cover contraception. Other religious organizations, including those that employ people of different faiths, can qualify for a one-year transition period as they prepare to comply with the new law.More than anything else, the administration’s notion that a one-year extension on its deadline is a satisfactory concession betrays its lack of diligence in trying to understand the concerns of those who have objected. But it is the extension period itself which has not received enough scrutiny. According to Secretary Sebelius: “We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support.” The terms of the extension waiver already violate Catholic moral teaching and will offer little consolation to those who apply for it.
Drugs that cause abortion are not covered by this policy: Drugs like RU486 are not covered by this policy, and nothing about this policy changes the President’s firm commitment to maintaining strict limitations on Federal funding for abortions. No Federal tax dollars are used for elective abortions.Controversial methods such as Plan B and ella, however, will be covered under the mandate. Both of these drugs admit that they can prevent the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall, which according to Catholic teaching, is an abortion at the earliest stage of a new life.
Moreover, the claim that no federal tax dollars are used for elective abortion - a reference to Hyde Amendment language - is misleading. Medicaid payments, for example, may not be made for abortions, but federal dollars are still given as aid to organizations that promote and perform abortions. While these funds are not to be used for abortion specifically, they do give the organization the flexibility to direct its other finances toward that end. The United States has gone back and forth on this type of funding for international aid organizations since President Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy,” which was reversed by President Clinton before being reinstated by President George W. Bush. President Obama rescinded the Mexico City Policy on January 23, 2009, the third day of his administration.
Contraception is used by most women.The widespread use of contraception does not justify that anyone be forced to pay for it, let alone a minority objecting on moral grounds. If contraception is not truly a preventive service, but merely a luxury, employees are no more entitled to it than they are to any other non-necessity, such as ice cream or a faster car.
Contraception coverage reduces costs: While the monthly cost of contraception for women ranges from $30 to $50, insurers and experts agree that savings more than offset the cost. The National Business Group on Health estimated that it would cost employers 15 to 17 percent more not to provide contraceptive coverage than to provide such coverage, after accounting for both the direct medical costs of potentially unintended and unhealthy pregnancy and indirect costs such as employee absence and reduced productivity. (emphasis added)In this final point the statement has sought to put a price on human life, which echoes from the heart of the materialist philosophy underlying the administration's position. That Secretary Sebelius and President Obama do not truly understand the convictions of those they have come into conflict with could not be any clearer.
