A letter from "Adele":
[Bumped up due to current events.]
I am in such a discouraged funk about our culture lately. The argument about birth control versus the freedom of religion was the straw that broke this camel’s back! Any discussions about the subject I hear are always women vs. the big bad everyone else. So, here goes...Hey women’s libbers; Hey Planned Parenthood, Hey liberal media...STOP using me as your ploy!! You never asked my opinion so stop speaking for "women" and start speaking for "some women".That is one of many great letters you can find at DrLaura.com. Good job, Adele!
You don't speak for me. I am an American; I am a voter; I am a mother of 5; I am a wife and I am a doctor. I do believe the freedom of religion is more important than the birth control pill. I do believe our constitution and it's amendments, fought for by the blood of our fathers, sons and brothers is vastly more important than an employee being forced to pay for something that will allow our sisters, daughters and friends to continue to perpetuate a "safe sex equals freedom" culture: A culture that has left us with an amoral society where young women think 'shacking up' is an integral part of a relationship. A culture where dismembering a 5, 6, even 9mt old baby in a mother’s womb while alive is considered a choice and not murder.
So, all of you who are fighting for the 'cause of women', who are standing up and banging the podium women must have the freedom of choice...ask me my choice! Stop speaking for me! You have made it so when I hear the words 'women’s health' I cringe because I know I am about to be grouped into some ideal that is against every core of my being. Do not group me with your ideals; do not include me with your rhetoric. If you are so concerned about choice then stop stifling mine!
Personally, I think these groups should held accountable for slander. No where in the media do you hear the words "some women". This means I have to be looked at as agreeing simply because I am a woman. I would like a group to speak for all men and see what happens.
[Bumped up due to current events.]
Awesome!!!
ReplyDeleteThe mystery to me is why does everyone seem to think this is an either-or situation? Either the religious institutions are screwed, or the women who need/use contraception are screwed. Why doesn't anyone look for a way to meet both needs - religious freedom and equal access to health care and fair treatment under the law?
ReplyDeleteRD, the answer is in freedom of association, free markets, and property rights. Contraception companies should be free to sell (or give away) contraception. Consumers should be free to buy (or accept) contraception. An insurance company should be free to offer contraception coverage. People should be free to purchase such insurance coverage. One person should NOT be forced to pay for another's contraceptive or abortive decisions.
DeleteWell, in the argument of contraception mandate vs. religious freedom, how are "freedom of association, free markets, and property rights" at issue? In this, "abortive" decisions are irrelevant - abortion isn't even on the table.
DeleteThe issues are: 1st Amendment: Gov't can't force religious institutions to take actions against their conscience; 14th Amendment: everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law. In the case of the contraception mandate for employers to cover contraception, these rights are in opposition in the case of non-religious employers owned by religious institutions, such as universities and hospitals, which hire people from all walks of life, religions, so on and so forth. How do we resolve the situation? Is there a way to find a win-win, or must somebody lose? Do we seek a way to accommodate both parts of our Constitution,or do we simply hammer at each other with no compromise, no prisoners, until it's our Constitution that is (further) compromised?
It seems to me offering a religious exemption to the contraception mandate, provided that the religious institution provides instead a pay bonus that is adequate to cover contraception purchased on the open market or through supplemental insurance, meets both needs. (In the case of the church itself, where there can be religious requirements of the employees, 1st Amendment trumps.) Maybe there are other ways to resolve it without compromising the Constitution, too. Sadly, neither side seems willing to even consider the issue holistically, much less compromise on it.