4 Reasons The Contraceptive Debate Is Bullshit

I have been following the Great Contraception Battle of 2012 with great interest. This is at least partly because I’m a bit surprised at how overblown it has gotten, and how much coverage it has received. Of all the culture war issues (abortion, gay marriage, why Kirk Cameron hasn’t gotten an Oscar nod), contraceptives has always seemed to be rather tame. With 90% of all women (and an even higher percentage of Catholic women) using them, this is less a wedge issue than it is a “meh” issue. At least, it should be, with such obvious support.

Instead, it has become the prominent culture war issue, thanks to Obama’s initiative to make free contraceptive care available through all health insurance. That is, except those provided by churches, and after a compromise last Friday, institutions affiliated with churches, such as Catholic hospitals and universities. Even with those concessions, the Catholic Church and the religious right have balked, insisting that this is an infringement of religious freedom. But that’s a bullshit argument, because…

Freedom of Religion Doesn’t Mean What They Think It Means

The term "religious freedom" has gotten tossed around a lot in this debate, mostly by Catholic bishops or prominant members of the religious right.  They see this as government forcing them to do something, which does sound pretty ant-liberty at face value.  Rick Santorum put it bluntly on Friday, saying "This is simply someone trying to impose their values on someone else, with the arm of the government doing so."  Values are being imposed on others!  This is awful.  This would be like if someone wanted to keep gays and lesbians from geting married based on their personal beliefs, and infringe upon those people's rights.  It would be ridiculous, right?

That is the inherent problem with Santorum making remarks like that.  For all his bluster about liberty and freedom, he is all for denying that same liberty to people his faith deems immoral.  In the case of the contraception issue, he is willing to deny women the ability to have control over their body because it goes against his religion.  He is basically saying that it is wrong for the government to impose values on people, because that's his job.

And THAT is what Freedom of Religion is meant to protect us from.  People are allowed to practice whatever faitht they choose, but only so far as it does not inhibit the rights of others.  As rupungent as I find it, you are allowed to believe that gays are evil and going to hell.  That's your right.  But you cannot prevent them from enjoying the same rights you enjoy simply for that reason.  It opens up the door for any manner of restrictions based around a specific dogma.  Might as well restrict people's rights for eating meat on Friday, or working on the Sabbath.  But that doesn't happen, because...

They Have Already Compromised Their Principles

A major argument against the initiative is that it forces the Church to participate in something that goes against it's core values.  This is the one argument that, I think, is the most persuasive of them all.  It strikes a chord with many people of varying ideaologies.  Sure, you may not agree with their beliefs, but wouldn't you be upset if this happened to you?

It would be a strong argument, if the Church was anywhere near consistant on these issues.  From a dogmatic point of view, simply selling health insurance is really a violation of God's will, since who are we to know when God wants us to die?  Recieving that open heart surgery could just be one giant middle finger to His plan, for all we know.  And Church provided plans have been providing for Viagra for years, and it's hard (hehe) to think of a bigger "Fuck you" to His intentions than that.  Church run hospitals operate on the Sabbath, and working on that day used to be punishable by death (Exodus 31:15).

 He's working on a Sunday!  Get him!

Now some would argue that these "sins" are not equal (though, according to James 2:10, yes they are).  And I supposed there is some validity to that argument.  But the validity and even urgency is undercut by how far off the mark they are from modern sensibility.  Don't forget, the Catholic Church also urges it's patrons to avoid vaccinations.  This controversy doesn't get as much coverage (despite it being somewhat related to fetuses and abortions) because overall we as a society have realized that vaccinations are a good thing.  (It's also worth pointing out that we are not aborting babies for the sole purpose of creating vaccinations).  As we move forward with medicine and technology, the Church remains stubbornly behind, even though it's own members tend to embrace these changes.

That's another important thing to consider.  The outcry isn't coming from actual Catholics so much as it's coming from the Church hierarchy.  And that's because...

This Isn't A Religious Issue, It's A Woman's Rights Issue


Most Catholics have already reached a compromise between their Church's teachings and the way the world actually works.  Just like most are OK working on a Sunday and are even coming around on gay rights, the majority (58%) of Catholics are fine with contraceptive care being included in health care (as the article points out, this is actually a higher percentage than the general population, which is at 55%).  And after the concession made by Obama on Friday, even the Catholic universities and hospitals are on board.

So why is there still an issue?  Well, it's the bishops.  They are the ones leading the charge, with eager right wing culture warriors following their lead.  And, as a friend of mine pointed out, there are a lot more men talking about the issue on news programs then women.  How does it make sense for men to be the main force behind what should and shouldn't happen with a woman's body?

The problem is the Catholic Church is a very patriarchal institution.  They view women as secondary to men, as beings who should be submissive.  They are not permitted to lead services and are excluded from being ordained or any position of authority (they can become nuns, but will always be subservient to a priest).  Men are the masters of the household, and a woman is supposed to obey her husbands wishes, having no authority over him (this is especially true in the Complementarianism theological view).  Rick Santorum even went so far as to say women shouldn't serve in combat.

With this in mind, the obsession over women's reproductive rights appears more and more as simply a way to try and keep women in line.  Since a man can't control when a woman becomes pregnant, well then neither should she!  Remember, you don't here much opposition to things like Viagra or vasectomies coming from these bishops.  Men are allowed to make those choices regarding their reproductive organs.  Women, apparently, do not get that luxury.

Needless to say, numerous women's groups are fighting back against the ploy to deny them contraceptive care (which isn't surprising, considering how many of them use it).  But the bishops and culture crusaders have more to worry about then women, because...

They Really Overreached On This One


Before Obama's concession on Friday, the Church and those on its side had an argument that, while still flawed in many ways, made enough sense that you could potentially empathize with them.  That's probably why Obama made the concession.  But that concession has been made, and the gymnastics the bishops and others are performing in order to still be against the rule is astounding, if not a little frightening.  If you jump back to the Newsweek article I posted earlier, the spokesman for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said "If I quit this job and opened a Taco Bell, I'd be covered by this mandate."  Well yes.  Yes you would.  Because Taco Bell has no religious affiliation (unless "Thou Shalt Be Delicious and Kill You" was a commandment).  But this is apparently unacceptable to him.  Even if you work at a fast food restaurant, you should be expected to follow the rules of your bosses faith, regardless of what your own beliefs might be.  And here we come right back to what freedom of religion actually means.

Let's have a thought exercise ( I know you're excited!)  Let's pretend that, instead of Catholic, your employer is a Scientologist.  Can he prohibit you from taking aspirin?  And could he fire you if you do?

Could he force you to talk to this guy?

This is not the kind of country we want to live in.  You may think it is, but you will seriously reconsider  that as soon as you wind up with a Muslim boss, or a Jewish employer who wants to decide what foods you can eat (gotta keep kosher!).  Last year Sharia Law was a boogeyman word the Right liked to use a lot, but what people don't realize is in trying to oppose this health care initiative, they are trying to set up a Christian version of Sharia Law.  They are ignoring what freedom of religion is supposed to do; allow you the ability to practice a belief without requiring it.

(And as a side note, if we are now able to determine what we have to pay for based on our beliefs, why are no Christians complaining about their tax dollars being used to fund wars and kill people?  I know I'd like a refund for any of my tax dollars that went to the War in Iraq, since I didn't believe we had cause to invade)

If you don't believe contraceptives are morally right, by all means, don't use them.  No one is forcing you too (especially with all the exceptions now in place).  But the flip side is you can't prevent people who want to use them.  It's a give and take.  But please stop acting like this is destroying freedom, or unraveling the moral fiber of society, or forcing you to have an abortion every Wednesday.  If you don't like being told what you can and can't do, take a good look in the mirror and tell me you aren't doing that yourself.

Missing The Big Picture

This week’s Newsweek cover story is about the “War on Christians.”  Upon seeing the article title, I was expecting a story on one of the GOPs favorite narratives; the “persecution” of Christians in America.  The Religious Right’s ability to always find a way to make themselves the victim (like this recent example) is both entertaining and infuriating, so I was a bit surprised to see this article look outside the country at what is certainly actual persecution of Christians in the Middle East.  Deadly persecution, in many cases.  And while the story is eye opening, I take issue with it.  I have less a problem with the substance of the article as I do with the way it was written; specifically, what was left out and glossed over. 

The main thrust of the article is that for all the attention “Islamaphobia” gets here in the states, there is a much harsher form of “Christianphobia” taking place in the mostly Muslim Middle East (say that five times fast).  And it is a very valid observation to make.  There is an argument to be made that, because of the sensitive nature of the politics of Islam, Muslim culture is often handled with kid gloves so as not to appear offensive or intolerant here in the U.S.  It especially tragic when we see just how oppressive and hostile the religious majority can be half a world away.  

The problem, though, is that the article refuses to address the underlying issue that is at play: that religion acts as a terrible and violently divisive force in society.  All of the violence being carried out in these countries is being carried out in the name of a being whose existence cannot be shown or proven through any means.  This all boils down (albeit in a simplistic way) to a “my dad can beat up your dad” mentality, except your dads are invisible and by “beat up” you mean “work in mysterious way,” so there is no way to actually prove if your dad is there, let alone who’s is better.

Leaving this out, to me, is like leaving racism out of discussions about the Civil Rights movement; it is vital to understanding how we arrived at this point.  But instead of even giving this even a passing mention, the author merely posits the Middle Eastern Muslims as the bad guys against the courageous Christian underdogs.  Now don't get me wrong, what is happening to these Christians is absolutely and truly unacceptable and awful.  But the issue goes beyond Muslims treating Christians in such an abhorrent way.  It is about how religion in general views any group or thing that falls outside its worldview.

There are parallels in this country, thought they are admittedly less extreme when compared to what is presented in the article.  We do not have any blasphemy laws here in the United States, but that didn't stop Christians from sending death threats to a 16 year old girl who successfully filed a lawsuit against here public high school to have them remove a prayer banner (which violated the Separation of Church and State). Koran's have been burned in public.  The building of Mosques have been  protested across the country.  Religion is inherently exclusive, and they are all competing against each other, all claiming to have the same thing.  Islam is a threat to Christianity for the same reason Christianity is a threat to Islam: they are making the same claim, and only one can be right.  (I am focusing on these two religions since they are the ones discussed in the article)

Yet none of this was even briefly touched upon.  Even if you do believe in a god, you should be able to admit that it does create tension and division in the world.  And not just one specific religion, but religion in general.  To ignore this is naive and misrepresents the issue at hand.  If you want to have a discussion about how one religion treats another, you must also talk about how ALL religions treat other worldviews, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you.