Contraception: A Matter of Conscience?
Almost two months ago, I read an LA Times editorial— ““Family planning runs amok…” — on a proposed change to Health and Human Services rules. Proposed by the Bush administration, the regulations could allow health care workers to refuse to provide birth control or participate in artificial insemination. Today the LA Times writes that the Bush administration is, in fact, planning to announce a broader medical refusal rule.
Back in September, the LA Times editorial board called the rule change proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services a “sneak attack†And said it is not a matter of “religious freedom clashing with private liberties.†The proposed rule would require health care facilities to certify in writing that their workers do not have to assist with procedures they find morally objectionable. However, this rule isn’t about abortion or sterilization, since health care providers with objections to these practices are already covered under the Church Amendment, passed in 1973 just weeks after Roe v. Wade. The Times’ editorial board believes that
this provision is an attempt to roll back the clock on reproductive rights to the early 1960s, when doctors could be arrested for selling contraceptives even to married couples… [The proposed rule] gives no definition of abortion, leaving it up to the individual provider. It’s equally unclear what else might be morally objectionable. Providing HIV tests? Treating the children of same-sex couples? Giving a rape victim emergency contraception, or delivering life-prolonging treatments to seniors?
Should health care providers with religious objections to any form of contraception be granted an exemption from offering services or prescriptions to patients? How do we strike a balance between the rights of women (98% of women of reproductive age have used or are currently using some form of contraception) and the rights of those who oppose any form of contraception for religious reasons?
If you want my two cents, health care providers shouldn’t be allowed an exemption from prescribing birth control. It seems to me like just one more futile attempt to re-establish a traditional, orthodox, conservative governing structure on a society that is by all accounts less traditional, orthodox, and conservative than ever before. In a day and age of modernity–when 98% ! of women of reproductive age have used birth control–it seems like the dying gasp of extreme social conservatives.
Yes, abortion is a subject on which people of faith have genuine moral convictions (and disagreements). But this rule isn’t about abortion; it’s about contraception. And for those of us who think common ground on abortion is a real way forward, contraception is key. In addition to support for women and their children, accessible and affordable family planning can help prevent unwanted pregnancies. Preventing unintended pregnancies will help reduce the number of abortions in the U.S. About one half of pregnancies in the US are unplanned, and US rates of unintended pregnancies are among the highest in the developed world. With our contraceptive technology and an educated populace, there is no reason this number should be so high. And with “sneak attacks†like this, we won’t be able to truly pursue common ground approaches to reducing abortion in this country.
I do think religious freedom needs to be taken into account for abortion. (A hot topic right now with regards to Catholic hospitals and the Freedom of Choice Act.) But contraception and family planning can protect women and families, reduce the number of abortions, and virtually all women support it. We need to make sure that it is available.