What year is it? 2012 correct? I am pretty sure it’s 2012, but given the current discussion regarding contraception, sexuality and women’s rights, I have to double check. Indeed, the present discourse is more reminiscent of the 1960 counter-culture and the sexual revolution with conservative reactionaries arguing that any and all cultural changes will inevitably destroy the very fabric of our society. Now of course, these reactionaries make up a small minority of Americans, and the GOP, who have so valiantly championed the anti-contraception and anti-women’s right causes, realize this. So, how do they justify taking such a controversial position on this matter? That is to say, why, during an election year, are Republicans fighting against contraception which has near universal support among the U.S. populace? To say that this is risky political calculus would be the understatement of the century. However, the way that this attack on women is being framed by the GOP seeks to cover up their true intentions i.e. suppressing the rights of women. The Republican Party has decided to justify their radical campaign by disguising it as a fight for the right of religious objection and exemption to/from federal mandates designed to protect public health. Fortunately, many individuals are able to see through this façade and recognize the GOP for what they are rapidly becoming: a party full of sexist, racist misinformed blowhards who would like to see us return to the ‘good ole days’ of Jim Crow and June Beaver.
Now there may be some of you who believe that my language is a bit, um, aggressive and that I am mischaracterizing the Republican Party. Touché. However, if one looks at the facts, they will find it difficult to agree with the GOP on this issue i.e. agree with the assumption that a) Pres. Obama’s contraception coverage mandate constitutes an attack on religion and b) that this is not an attack on women’s health.
Let’s consider these facts which address subpoint A:
1. Churches are exempt from this mandate. Period.
2. Religiously affiliated institutions will not have to pay for contraception.
3. Insurers will be required to reach out and provide the contraception to women free of charge.
In summation, religious institutions will have no role in directly providing contraceptive services to women thereby making their argument that Obama’s policy forces them to provide contraception and go against their religious and moral conscience void.
Now for the facts which address subpoint B:
1. By opposing this policy, the GOP ensures that women will not have free access to preventative health care
2. GOP continuously state that this policy is a ‘mandate’ not conceding that individual women can opt out.
3. Contraceptive resources serve a wide range of functions unrelated to pregnancy including the prevention of the development of ovarian cysts, the preservation of fertility by maintaining the functioning of female reproductive organs as well as the balancing of hormones and alleviation of migraines.
So when we take these facts into account, it becomes clear that the GOP is opposed to providing equal healthcare to women. It is true that perpetuating the belief that all contraception is good for is to prevent pregnancy and allow women to have wild and uncommitted sex makes for good talking points and rallies the base. However, it is also true that it is grossly inaccurate and irresponsible. The GOP leadership should have the courage to at least declare what this really is all about: a belief that women are second class citizens and should not have access to basic health care technologies.
I can go and on about this issue. Whether I’m discussing the comment made by Santorum’s sponsor Foster Friess about how women should go back to placing aspirin between their knees as a cheap form of birth control, or the fact that the Congressional Hearings regarding this issue featured an expert panel of 9 men and only two women who were all invited by Republicans and, not surprisingly, shared similar views as the Republican hosts. The fact of the matter is, the GOP is just plain wrong. 98% of Catholic women use contraception and 99% of all women use it. This shouldn’t be an issue in 2012. Which leads me to ask again: what year is it?
I'm definitely not a fan of Santorum and conservatives of his mindset, but I do believe that you are oversimplifying this issue quite a bit. Within religious/morally conservative circles (particularly among Catholics), contraception is still a pretty big debate topic and the logic behind opposition to contraception really has very little to do with women's reproductive rights.
ReplyDeleteDevout Catholics (as well as other religious/moral conservatives) view sex as a sacred physical and spiritual act that is composed of two basic elements: the unitive element and the procreative element. In this view, to divorce these two elements degrades sex and compromises its sanctity. Thus contraception is viewed as prohibiting individuals from experiencing the joy and the true holistic nature of sex.
That being said, I don't know anyone (regardless of their personal views on the use of contraception) who proposes that access to contraception should be limited or denied to anyone. Even people I know who are personally opposed to the use of contraception argue that the decision to use or not use it is a very intimate one and should only be decided by individual couples. The conservative opposition to mandated insurance coverage of contraception is not rooted in an opposition to contraception itself as much as in an opposition to religious organizations subsidizing/promoting contraception or making it a quick and easy decision as opposed to a thoughtful and calculated decision. The only end coverage of contraception serves is to promote it and ease access to it and religious/moral conservatives believe that contraception should neither be promoted nor prohibited.
My sister is feminist (trust me she is--she doesn't even shave her legs because she is so opposed to women being forced into conventional social roles). She is one of the most strong-willed, independent-minded, and intelligent women I know yet she is personally opposed to contraception for the reasons that I have described (i.e. she believes that it degrades sex). While she would never tell someone that they couldn't use contraception, she wants that decision to be made on an intimate level, not a societal level and she certainly doesn't want her church to be promoting or subsidizing it. Also many of those of her mindset believe that contraception actually benefits men more than it does women because it allows for men to abuse women emotionally and physically with no consequences--they can just treat women purely as sex objects. They argue that widespread contraception has change the sexual climate of our society--transforming sex from a life-giving, enriching act into a exploitative and manipulative act.
In conclusion, I just wanted to add, while I definitely agree that blindly maintaining tradition/the status quo is very dangerous, blindly pursuing progress and change is just as dangerous. Therefore I think that it's important not to promote progress for the sake of progress.
I'm sorry that this has ended up being such a long comment. I just felt the need to chime in and clarify that there is more to the issue of religious organizations and mandatory coverage of contraception than initially meets the eye. Thanks for the provocative post! I look forward to reading more of your stuff!
Thanks for your comment. I enjoy reading your thoughts. I think that we can agree that sex is indeed a sacred act and I also agree with you on the point that contraceptive decisions should be made at the individual level. That being said, the mandate just increases access to contraception. I believe that women who do decide to use contraception for any reason should have access to it.
ReplyDeleteI agree that progress for the sake of progress is faulty. However, the times are changing. This mandate would simply reflect changing societal values, not perpetuate them.
But again, thanks for your comments.