The Department of Health and Human Services recently announced a federal mandate that will force employers and insurers to provide health coverage for both birth control and sterilization, as well as several highly controversial abortion-inducing drugs. A decision like this is a direct violation of the First Amendment, which protects the right to conscience.
For many, this is less a concern regarding political opinion and more a concern for political freedom. The Obama administration’s decision is totally unprecedented. A large resistance emerged from the Catholic population, whose hospitals and related health services constitute a substantial portion of the health care in America. The regulations claim to allow a religious exemptions, but it’s narrow enough that Catholic health services do not qualify.
The exemption is so limited that even Christ and the disciples would not be eligible, points out Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York and President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Furthermore, the initiative intentionally associates serious diseases such as diabetes and cancer with unintended pregnancy. In the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report, unintended pregnancy along with serious illness is referred to as a “disease or condition.” This report lists consequences of unintended pregnancy as if it too has “symptoms” that must be prevented — psychological depression, for example. But incongruously, the IOM fails to address the similar, often chilling, effects of birth control and abortion-inducing drugs on women and their mental health.
Richard M. Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops summarizes this bias perfectly: “IOM’s reports seem based less on science than on the ideology of authors who share Planned Parenthood’s view of sex and procreation, several of whom have served on the boards of Planned Parenthood affiliates and other pro-abortion organizations.”
My question is: why does the science of this one particular group hold precedence over other medical voices that can scientifically prove the opposite? What does this say about the wholesale reliance of political decisions on science? And more immediately — who misplaced our Bill of Rights?
I do not reject the entire new initiative or its intention. I understand the desire to improve women’s health care in our country. However, this decision is dangerous to our religious freedom and disingenuous in its commitment to women’s health. It should be overturned.
