Wednesday, May 2, 2012

contraception inception: we need to go deeper

The caption reads: "What, dinner not ready yet! What have you been doing?"
Much of our culture has changed since this old anti-women's suffrage comic,
but the war against women is still a very real problem.

A question: is the recent debate regarding contraceptives an issue of women’s rights?
How I would answer: absolutely.

Another question: is the recent debate regarding contraceptives an attack on religious freedom?
How I would answer: absolutely not.

This might come as a surprise to those of you who know me. I am, after all, a very devout Christian. But I’m also very much a feminist—and no, that is not an oxymoron. Still, you may be wondering how I could defend the “feminist” stance over the more “Christian” stance, so I thought I would explain why I wholeheartedly believe that insurance companies should cover the cost of contraception despite any religious convictions.

 Let us list some of the reasons a woman might want to take birth control, shall we?

If a woman…

  1. Is not physically capable of surviving a pregnancy 
  2. Could not financially support a pregnancy 
  3. Has a medical condition which is treated with contraception 
  4. Has a medical condition which would endanger a pregnancy 
  5. Is in a position where her health might be compromised by a pregnancy 
  6. Is married and does not want any or more children 
  7. Is single and does not currently want children 
  8. Would like to experience fewer and lighter periods 
  9. Experiences painful or inhibiting symptoms of premenstrual syndrome 
  10. Uses contraceptives to help prevent endometrial and ovarian cancer 

…then she might talk with her doctor and explore birth control as an option.

 First of all, allow me to explain each side, as I understand it:

Why contraceptives SHOULD be provided by insurance:
  1. Many women take birth control for legitimate health reasons 
  2. Not all women can afford the cost of contraception 
  3. Some women are married and do not currently want to start a family 
  4. Some women are unmarried and do not currently want to start a family 

Why contraceptives should NOT be provided by insurance:
  1. Contraception is readily available to those who take it for health reasons 
  2. Contraception is inexpensive and insurance coverage isn’t even necessary 
  3. This is a First Amendment issue, not a women’s rights issue 
  4. The church shouldn't be forced to provide and pay for something to which they morally object 
(There is more to be said on each side, but these are the arguments I’ve most commonly heard.)

Now. Let’s discuss this.




FACT:
Contraception is not only for preventing pregnancy.

Contraception can be prescribed for certain types of cancer, ovarian cysts, and menorrhagia. Women with high chances of experiencing life-threatening complications if they became pregnant might decide that preventing pregnancy with birth control is the safest, most effective way to live life normally without that sort of threat.

This alone makes the debate an issue of women’s rights.

Now, birth control pills are not the only form of contraception. One example of birth control that is not the pill would be IUDs, or intrauterine devices. With IUDs, you only have to worry about the procedure once every few years, but the cost of a single procedure can exceed $1,000. This is quite a significant amount of money to pay out of pocket.

Of course, the pill is the one that is under scrutiny. Where IUDs prices are in the thousands, a package of birth control pills can be bought for a price closer to $10-$100.

This fact has created an unfortunate myth about the ease of obtaining contraceptives.

FACT:
Contraception is not necessarily cheap or easy to obtain.

"But contraception is inexpensive! Birth control is available for women who legitimately need it at an affordable price."

To this, I reply: LIES.

True, you can pick up a box of birth control from a major retailer for as little as $10. Only, the people making this argument don’t seem to understand how birth control works. There are a few things you need to understand.
  1. Birth control pills and condoms don’t work the same way. Birth control pills aren’t something that you take whenever you want to have sex. With condoms and Viagra, you only have to worry about it when the time comes. With birth control, you take it every day, and you continue to take it indefinitely. So, if you have a month’s supply of birth control, that is how long it will last you: a month. It doesn’t matter if you have sex every day for a month or if you don’t have sex at all the entire year.

  2. Birth control isn’t “one size fits all.” That $10 package of birth control might work wonders for some girls, but they are still medication. Others will not find it effective. Women will experience different side effects and different results depending on what sort of pill they take. Some might find a brand that works for them that comes with a generic alternative while some will be stuck paying full price for something much more expensive.

Let’s refer to this chart, shall we?

Chart taken from americanprogress.org. Or, if you would like a general idea of the difference in cost
when purchasing with insurance, there is a calculator available here.

That does not look cheap to me. Sure, some people can afford these costs, but there are many who cannot. Yes, these prices are relatively inexpensive compared to many other medications, but that does not mean it is affordable for everyone. Some possible results: women skipping doses in order to cut down on costs; women avoiding contraception as a viable option for their health issues; unwanted, expensive pregnancies. Are we really so unwilling to help women live healthy, stable lives?

FACT:
Some women do not want to have children.

At least, they do not want to have children at this very moment.

People seem to have the image that the only women who use contraceptives are the ones who are unmarried and who do not have any kids. This is simply not true. Contraception is used by all types of women, whether they are married or single, mothers or not. They can be Christians, agnostics, or anywhere else on the religious spectrum. They simply don’t want to have children.

This could be for several reasons. Maybe they already have several children and have decided they do not want any more. They might be fairly young or newlyweds, not ready for the responsibility children will bring. Maybe they want to focus on their career instead. Maybe they are not financially stable yet.

"If that’s the case, why use birth control at all? Why not use condoms?"
Because birth control (the patch, the pill, and IUDs included) are more effective than condoms. Plus, some women would rather not leave it up to the hope that whomever they have sex with will be using a condom. There are female condoms, but I’m fairly certain that they’re even less effective than male condoms.

"If they don’t want children, abstinence is always the best option."
Wrong.

Geez. Women who want control of their reproductive parts are such sluts.

Again, you are assuming that the women in this category are all the same: young, promiscuous, and unmarried. For some women, abstinence is absolutely the best option. But what about a married woman? Are you going to tell her she shouldn’t have sex with her husband, or that she should leave it up to God’s will? Yes, the Bible says to be fruitful and multiply, but the Bible was not written in a time like now, when we have hit the 7 billion mark and are having serious concerns regarding overpopulation. If a couple decides that they don’t want more than a certain amount of children, or even if they don’t want any, I don’t think that God will hold that against them.

"What about the morning after pill? That has companies paying for a form of abortion."
This is a very common misconception that drives me crazy. The morning after pill is not a form of abortion. Emergency contraception (EC) prevents women from becoming pregnant at all. There is no termination or abortion of any kind involved. You are thinking of the abortion pill, which is NOT a contraceptive. EC is taken 1-5 days after having unprotected sex, while the abortion pill can be taken up to 9 weeks after, I believe. Abortion involves the termination of a fetus; EC keeps the egg from being fertilized, keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus, or prevents or delays ovulation. One is ending a pregnancy; one is preventing a pregnancy.

"But they still shouldn’t have to pay for some girl’s mistake."
Accidents happen. Are you going to potentially punish a girl by letting her face pregnancy? If you are a man, you might have to help pay for child support, but you would not need to carry the child for nine months or give up all future ambitions in order to raise the child. Of course, there are men who take responsibility, but the burden is mostly the woman’s. And I am sure that some of you reading are thinking to yourselves, “but children are a gift from God!” or “that’s what she gets for acting like a slut.” God created the biology that causes pregnancy, but I do not and cannot believe that God impregnates women as a punishment. And, of course, children are wonderful, but not if you are not ready for them.

Also, why assume that it is the girl’s fault? Maybe a condom broke. Maybe the guy she slept with forgot the condom. Maybe she was brutally raped. Maybe she skipped some doses of birth control because she does not have the money for it.

It is not your place to judge her, no matter what the reason.

However, those who are against having contraceptives covered by insurance companies do have a legitimate concern.


FACT:
Forcing a religious institution to provide contraception does not inhibit religious freedom.

If insurance is being provided by a religious institution that is against premarital sex and/or the use of contraception, you may ask, why should they have to pay for it? Aren’t you asking people to go against their beliefs?

In other words, do you realize who would be paying for this?

Indeed I do, but no one is asking the Church to compromise their teachings on sex. No one is ordering the Church to stop teaching abstinence, or to turn their backs on their beliefs.

Women are asking you to do your job.


Shut up and give me my pills, old man! You're infringing my rights
to live my childhood dream and become a prostitute!

Let me tell you a story. My job involved designing and printing products for customers. One day, I had a very nice lady come in to make membership cards for her “club”—a club in which adults joined together to have very kinky sex. Did this make me uncomfortable? A little, maybe. But it was obvious that her club emphasized that the sex was safe and consensual, and her business had nothing to do with me. So, I made the cards.

This might have been a more morally traumatizing experience for some of you than it was for me. You might think of me as an enabler. I helped make it possible for their sin to happen. But I don’t see it this way. I certainly was not about to compromise my beliefs and join it, but I wasn't going to turn away my company’s services from this woman because I disagreed with her. Instead, I did my job to the fullest of my abilities and prayed that the people involved would come to see God’s love and find deep, meaningful relationships in their lives.

I understand having some sort of code of conduct for employees of a religious institution, but it is not the Church’s place to pass judgment on individuals. It is, however, the job of the health insurance companies to ensure the well-being of the men and women under their care and to give them the support they need to lead healthy lives.

Again, the Church can preach all they want to about whether it is right or wrong.

If the women seeking contraceptives are as slutty as they are perceived, then I would assume they will remain sexually active in spite of what you tell them. But if contraceptives are too expensive or unavailable, some women—instead of seeking effective, healthy methods of birth control—will seek alternative methods: skipping doses to lower cost and therefore increasing chances of accidental pregnancy; relying on less effective types of birth control, such as the pull-out method or the rhythm method; and, yes, seeking abortions after pregnancy.

You might say that having the government ensure that insurance companies provide reproductive healthcare to women is a violation of the first amendment. But do you realize that, by keeping women from getting the care that they need, you are imposing your religious views on another person, forcing them to adjust their life according to your beliefs?

Now, imagine that you have a condition which periodically causes you severe pain. You go to the doctor for help, and he tells you, “You’ll be happy to know that there is a medication on the market that will solve your problem.”

“Great!” you answer. “I’ll even have time to go to the pharmacy before it closes.”

The doctor shakes his head. “Oh, no, I’m sorry. I can’t give you the prescription. Pain medication goes against my religious beliefs.”

You stare at him. “But it’s not against mine, so I don’t have any issue taking it. There’s no way for me to get that medicine unless I get a prescription. I can’t even go to a different doctor to have him give the prescription to me because you are the only doctor my insurance covers.”

“That’s some tough luck, huh? It’s okay—for the most part, you only feel in pain when you do strenuous things. So just avoid running, jogging, walking for long periods of time, lifting, pushing open heavy doors, and anything else that gets your heart rate up for the rest of your life. You’ll be fine.”

Now. If this were to happen, how would you feel? Upset? Afraid? You might be rolling your eyes at me for positing such a ridiculous scenario, but that is exactly my point. It is ridiculous to be denied the care that you need in order to appease the religious beliefs of the one who will be providing that care.

Once we have healthy reproductive systems, we will have the power
to take down religious institutions one by one. Mwahahahaha!

Don’t get me wrong – I would be appalled if the government was forcing me to go against my religious beliefs simply because someone else wanted me to. But religious institutions must understand that they are not some higher form of government. Their job is to teach people about what Christ has done for them and how they should live in order to honor Him. Their mission is one of social justice, to provide help and care and to show the love of Christ to the world. They should not be keeping women from getting the contraception they need because the idea of women having sex upsets them. That is not the Church’s purpose.

Have you ever heard of the separation of church and state? No, it is not in the constitution, as I have often been reminded. But just as “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” we must remember that it is equally as oppressive for an establishment of religion to force their beliefs upon the public. You might argue that the Church is not “forcing their beliefs” upon anyone, but you are telling women that you do not want them to have sex and taking away their means of having it safely. And yes, I would consider this oppressive.

Women’s rights have come a long way in America, and there are much more atrocious things happening to women in other areas. But this does not change the fact that men and women are still unequal in America. I am proud to be a Christian, but I cannot tell you how many times I have felt ashamed of the Church for its backwards thinking and attacks against the equality of men and women. I am sure I am offending some readers for saying this, but please. Stop this tirade against women.

1. This is an opinion piece. I am not representing a church, organization, or denomination. Please feel free to contact me for further discussion or information. If you disagree, I would love to hear your side of things.
2. Images taken from Google images. None of them were created by me.
3. I understand that abortion is also a subject of this debate, but I wanted to focus solely on the contraception issue. Abortion is on a different level from the contraception debate because it is also a matter of defining when life begins and how we are to handle the rights of the unborn.

No comments:

Post a Comment