Last week, the Obama administration approved a rule requiring employers to cover the cost of contraceptives in their employee health plans.
This is a huge step forward for both the Obama administration and preventive healthcare. Contraceptives, along with other forms of preventive services and medicine, will now be available to employees with no cost-sharing such as co-pays or deductibles.
While there has been much rejoicing over this new mandate from the more progressive-thinking individuals inhabiting the U.S., the rule has also come under scrutiny. This anti-progress fire is coming from—you guessed it—right-wingers and various religious groups throughout the country.
Much of this is because the administration has denied an exemption to this new rule for religiously affiliated employers such as universities and hospitals. The mandate gives these particular employers a full year to decide how to deal with the new requirements concerning contraceptives. Churches have been given full exemption from the mandate due to that all-powerful separation of church and state.
Despite denying the exemption to religiously affiliated employers, President Obama is working to assure religious leaders and employers that his administration will be directly involved in finding a way for this mandate to make everyone happy.
Even with the president and his administration fully committed to finding a solution for everyone, much opposition still exists.
So far two universities, Belmont Abbey College in Belmont, N.C., and Colorado Christian University in Lakewood, Colo., have sued the government in federal court in an attempt to overturn the requirement. Both universities argue that the mandate violates the First Amendment rights and laws protecting individual religious practices.
Bi-partisanship and unity are obviously not very alive and well these days. These religious groups and those opposed to the mandate have made it clear that they intend to mount an all-out war to defeat this new rule.
Although the administration has offered religiously affiliated employers a one-year window to straighten their problems (though other words could be substituted) out, one year does not guarantee a solution. Obama’s first presidential term will most likely end well before any solutions can be decided upon.
Despite his attempts to appeal to said religious groups, unless Obama is reelected there is little hope for any end that will make both sides happy and ensure the safety of employees in the U.S.
It is funny that those against this new mandate are using the First Amendment in their argument. The first thing the amendment states is, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
If these religiously affiliated organizations are going to cite the First Amendment as their main argument against something that is going to benefit the country more than hurt it, they need to read the entire amendment.
It is understandable that these religiously affiliated organizations would not necessarily want to provide birth control and other forms of contraceptives to their employees. Many religions—Catholicism, for example—do not support the use of contraceptives and safe-sex practices.
“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable,” Timothy Dolan, a New York archbishop and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a press statement issued Jan. 20. “It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty.”
While it is important to respect an individual’s right to practice their own religion, it is also important to factor personal safety into the equation, despite religious affiliation. No one, no matter what religion they belong to, should feel like they are in danger due to personal sexual practices.
The mandate is not forcing the employers to use contraceptives, it is requiring them to cover the costs should their individual employees decide to protect themselves.
Many of the current Republican presidential contenders have been critical of the Obama administration’s decision to require coverage of contraception costs.
These candidates (I’m looking at you, Mitt Romney) have also criticized Obama’s views on religion. In a campaign video, former Republican candidate Rick Perry went so far as to ask the American people to “help [him] end Obama’s war on religion.”
Last time I checked, there existed a little thing called the “separation of church and state.” That term gets thrown around a lot, but many people who use it do not know what it really means. It exists mainly to remind us that there should be separation between the powers of the church and the government.
This new rule is not being approved to prevent people from practicing their faith of choice. It is being put in place to protect people, human beings, who have chosen to be sexually active. The mandate will not force employers to compromise their personal beliefs; it simply asks that they take the time to protect their employees from unwanted pregnancy, various diseases and infections and other preventable health issues.
Obama and his administration are attempting to be socially progressive. Their aim is to make preventive health care affordable and accessible for everyone, not just those who can afford it. By giving the year-long window the president is attempting to make relations between the government and religious institutions smoother.
Our current president really does have the interest of the American people at heart. He is simply doing what all presidents have aimed to do: change the country for the better.
With the 2012 election mere months away, it is important to know who is fighting to protect the safety and rights of the American people. Obama is trying to make healthcare accessible and affordable for everyone. Rather than labeling him a communist and doubting his citizenship at every turn, we should be applauding him and giving him our support.
Anyone in opposition of this mandate should remember something: higher percentages of effective contraceptive use means less breeding in an already over-populated world.
Fewer babies means fewer babies growing up to be those pesky liberals and feminists always out protesting for their reproductive rights and universal healthcare. Go, contraceptives!