In a recent article in the New York Times, President Obama’s decision regarding exemptions to his healthcare reform legislation has had a serious effect on religious institutions. Under President Obama’s new healthcare reform laws, all employers are to provide employees with preventive health coverage, including various forms of birth control, at no cost to the employee. Church-affiliated organizations are extremely opposed to this piece of legislation. Most feel as though they are forced to endorse a policy which is in direct violation of their moral opinions. Although, exemptions may apply to employers without variations of faith among employees, the exemption is not applicable to multi faith religious institutions such as hospitals and universities. Despite arguments from several religious institutions, President Obama has made his final decision not to broaden the exemption, but to extend the compliance deadline by an additional year for religious institutions.
Although the most apparent issue at hand is the far too familiar battle between Church and State, the ongoing opposition by the Church to science and women’s rights can also be detected by moderate observation. The state makes every attempt not to inhibit institutions of faith, while still providing services to its citizens. This, however, becomes complicated when services being offered by the state are not in compliance with the moral order of its citizens as decided by their faith and the Church. The policies of the state are often allied with modern principles of science and individual’s rights. In modernity lies infringement upon tradition and ancient practices and beliefs held so tightly by the Church.
If the exemption to religious institutions is broadened, those who are in moral agreement with the use of contraception may be deprived the opportunity to receive the same healthcare benefits as those not employed by a religious institution. A nurse at St. Joseph’s Hospital may have fewer healthcare opportunities than a cashier at the local Wal-Mart, despite her moral regard towards contraception. With the exemption maintaining its current limitations and specificity, it allows people with differing religious perspectives from their employers to receive premium quality healthcare. This is a modern piece of legislation conducive to the modern society in which we operate. Our society is one in which individuals are given the opportunity to utilize readily available resources in order to maintain a higher standards of health. We have scientific evidence to prove the effectiveness of better healthcare decisions, and thus we alter our legislation and lifestyles accordingly. Although this inevitably will result in discrepancies between the separation of Church and State, this piece of legislation in no way inhibits faith based traditions, and ultimately places the responsibility of healthcare decisions on the individual.
9 comments:
I really like this article that you present us with. I feel that this issue is much like the issue we saw with Rick Perry's campaign in implementing the HPV vaccine for both girls and boys in educational systems. Many religious followers having qualms with this as well. What I find most frustrating is that in dealing with the birth control, this policy is trying to implement safer sex and further more an option for women. The choice is still the individuals to use birth control, just because HealthCare providers are now issuing birth control more freely, does not mean that one MUST take the pill. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of religion withdrawing an opportunity from women in which would prevent them from having the freedom of choice.
I agree with Kathryn that simply because birth control is covered by insurance doesn't mean that all women will use it. Even if a woman does work for and subscribe to a certain faith which disapproves of birth control, her personal values may not completely align in this regard. In addition, there are many women who take an oral contraceptive simply to control hormonal disorders.
It appears that religious institutions take issue with the intent of contraception to impede new life not with its ability help like any other prescription. I wonder if these institutions have considered the other uses of birth control.
Regardless, I believe President Obama made the correct decision that has helped to keep women’s reproductive health costs minimal and infringed on no one’s religious rights because covering birth control does not necessarily mean using birth control.
I believe that this policy has been implemented to promote safe sex and to mitigate the percentage of teenage pregnancies. If using contraceptives is against someone's religious beliefs then they simply do not have to consume them. I think that it is important to provide the choice for people who work for religious institutions to get coverage for contraceptives if they decide they want to use them. President Obama is not forcing anyone to consume the contraceptives. If that were the case then the separation of church and state would be a more pertinent issue.
I will fall in line with the opinions expressed already, and that of President Obama. In today’s society, the number of young women that get pregnant before they are able to take care of themselves and a child has become somewhat of an epidemic. Our youth is going to have sex, period. I would prefer for someone promote safe sex rather than abstinence, because if we’re honest with ourselves, abstinence is often an afterthought. I understand that within religious institutions people are taught that sex before marriage is looked down upon, but I truly believe that if people are not allowed a choice over whether or not to have children, their sovereignty and freedom to control their lives is severely restricted.
I like the questions your posting raises. In general, I think this is a great step toward better sexual education in this country. Sexual related issues like teen pregnancy and STI rates are at an all time high. More measures, like this, should be taken to better promote healthy sexual lives.
As far as religious reasons for opposing this, you do not have to take birth control, it is just an option IF you want to.
Preston L.
This does raise a sticky situation. One hand the religious organizations may argue that their religious liberty has been infringed. Should they be required to fund health benfits for birth control, when they believe it is immoral to do so? One the other hand, should an employer dictate what an employee's moral issues should be, or more specifically the right of a woman to use birth control?
I agree with comments made so far. I believe that the decision should be left up to women. This is good way for providing contraception to those who want it. In the end the decision should be left up to women, no matter their religious belief. I can also see the problems that Catholics will have, but as long as they are not pressured into taking the contraception there should be no problem. Preventing unwanted/teen pregnancy is a problem that should be handled with church and state working together. In this case I believe that Obama had the right idea, by having contraception available to everyone, whether they use it or not is left up to the individual.
I really like this article you have chosen and I completely agree with what Obama is trying to do here. It is important to have good knowledge about sexual health and to take preventative measures. Like many people have said here, I think that requiring employers to provide health care and birth control pills is a great requirement. However, it is up to the individual to make the decision whether or not to take it. If you are affiliated with a religion that refuses to abide by this then I do think it’s a bit unfair since they are taking the choice and decision away from you and taking away your freedom. In a way, it is a good thing because you only have one choice and would not require birth control. But how many people would actually follow what their religion believes about safe sex. I just think that having the option would lower teen pregnancies and give women a way choice that they must make for themselves. It’s better to have options.
Post a Comment