4

White House mandates contraception coverage at religious institutions

White House is encroaching on citizens moral truth with birth control mandate.
BY FIONA CORNER
Sports Editor

The Pioneer Log opinion

February 10, 2012

Obamas mandate allows for equal access, regardless of economic situation.

BY LAURA BLUM
Staff Writer

Being a Republican at Lewis & Clark is challenging. Being a Catholic Republican, Im just throwing myself to the wolves. Usually I go about my day as a double major wearing a silver cross, listening to my classmates call their conservative (and sometimes religious) parents crazy, ignorant and old fashioned. I normally dont speak up because I do not have the energy for a heated debate with someone who isnt going to change their mind, and Im not in the business of asking them to. But as a national leaderfor Catholic college students, this is an issue I must speak up about. Hopefully you know that on Friday, Jan. 20 President Obama personally called New York Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), an organization I serve, to let him know that later that day the Obama Administration would not be exempting Church-affiliated institutions from a new health-care regulation requiring employers to offer health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. There was however one concession: Catholic hospitals, schools and charities (non-profits) would be given 12 extra months, until Aug. 30, 2013, to comply. Basically, President Obama is giving Catholic institutions one year to figure out how to violate their consciences. Some might say there are already Catholic institutions that offer contraceptive services in their health care plans, for instance Dominican Hospital in Santa Cruz,

Calif. They also might say that a large number of Catholic Americans use birth control. These statements are irrelevant because contraception is not the issue. The issue is the governments coercion of citizens over their expressed conscience objections. Last fall, 57,000 individuals campaigned with the bishops opposing the mandate. Now those 57,000 Americans are being ignored. Never before have individuals and organizations been forced by the government to purchase and provide a product that violates their conscience. In a country where the free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights, this is an unacceptable policy. Im not here to say my piece about whether or not I support the use of birth control or abortion-inducing drugs. I am here to say that its not the place of our administration to coerce religious institutions to violate their conscience. You might not agree with the teachings or the practices of the Catholic Church, but you should not agree with forcing an institution to do something against their beliefs. Forcing Catholic institutions to adhere to the Health & Human Services Bill is like telling a kosher restaurant they have to serve pork. Its just not done.

ILLUSTRATION BY SAMANTHA SARVET

Last month, the Obama administration made a decision that will protect the health of thousands of women across the nation. Under the new health care law, insurance is required to cover birth control without copays, even at religiously affiliated institutions. Catholic universities are incensed about this ruling. Until now, many nurses and doctors at Catholic universities have simply refused to prescribe birth control to their patients, forcing students to go to outside clinics or physicians. These visits are often not covered by student insurance, and are thus much more expensive. As a result, many low-income women at Catholic universities simply go without birth control, even when they are sexually active or have a medical reason for needing to take hormonal contraception. And we all know what happens next: unplanned pregnancies, abortions and serious health problems. Meanwhile, the nurses and doctors at these colleges are complaining that this is a violation of their Constitutional right to freedom of religion. To them, its a slippery slope that can only lead to Catholics across the nation being systematically persecuted by the state. Theyre missing the point. The ruling isnt about limiting the rights of individuals to freely worship; its about guaranteeing the health and safety of women, regardless of their income level. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has forbidden the use of any artificial means to prevent pregnancy, citing it as immoral. But the church is also strongly against abortion. Well, you cant have your cake and eat it too. If you prevent people from having access to safe contraception, then there will be unplanned pregnancies; and even if abortion is illegal, there will be abortions. Its tragically shortsighted to overlook this fact. In the Catholic Churchs ideal world, no-

body would have sex outside of marriage, all pregnancies would be planned, and nobody would have diseases that necessitate the use of hormonal birth control. But thats simply not the world we live in. A report issued by the Institute of Medicine states that half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, and 4 out of 10 unplanned pregnancies are terminated. The same report showed that birth control not only reduces the rate of pregnancy, but also abortion. So why not choose the lesser of two evils, and prevent abortions by prescribing birth control? The Institute of Medicine concluded their report by stating that birth control is not a luxury, but a medical necessity. Yes, a necessity, like antibiotics, blood pressure medications, and other medicines that keep people alive and well. By denying their patients access to birth control, these Catholic doctors and nurses are violating the duties of their job and putting their patients at risk. Some critics of the law say that if students attending Catholic universities dont agree with their institutions principals, then they ought to find another school. But any college student knows that its not that simple. We young people seldom have the luxury of choice when it comes to the structure of our lives. Were tightly controlled by social expectations, parental rules, and financial burdens. Its no easy task to uproot your life and just switch schools. Thats like asking somebody to move to another state because their local municipality refuses to provide safe drinking water. It doesnt matter whether these doctors personally believe in it or not: if a patient requests birth control, they must supply it, with no co-pays, as the law dictates. And if they dont want to, then I would advise them to either change professions, or stop working at a Government-supported, tax-paying institution. The law still protects their right to worship publicly, go to mass, distribute pamphlets and to do virtually anything else that the Catholic faith may require. It just doesnt protect their right to hurt those who have been entrusted to their professional care.

African Union must protect gay minority

BY JAKE BARTMAN
Staff Writer

I like to write about hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is that which proves the insanity of the world and exposes its leaders as far more comical than they would like themselves portrayed. Hypocrisy cannot be downplayed or excused. Consider two-time divorcee Newt Gingrichs support of traditional family values and religious conservatism, which is so laughable that it helps one to remember not to take the whole election too seriously. But Im not going to talk about Newt Gingrich, whose flaws are sufficiently clear. There are grander instances of hypocrisy at play in the world that have yet to receive the guffaws they ought to excite, or the positive change they ought to inspire. Take the argument made by the United Nations and the European Union against the African Unions lack of respect for gay rights. Few African countries have elected to provide any legal defense of the queer minority, with allies like Egypt and Nigeria among the fold of homophobic nations. On Jan. 30, the UNs Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged African leaders present at a two-day summit to provide stronger protection for gay rights. His statement, which has been

called groundbreaking, chastised leaders by noting that discrimination based on sexual orientation prompts governments to treat people as second-class citizens or even criminals. This view is shared by the top brass of the United States government, and last month Secretary of State Hilary Clinton claimed that being gay is not a Western invention, but a human reality. Though Clinton has long supported gay rights in the United States, we are still far from entitled to tell any country how it ought to treat its gay citizens. And that the leader of the UN speaks so openly against homosexualitys condemnation makes clear just how backwards the United States is when it comes to gay rights. This is also an instance of hypocrisy that makes explicit the sort of judgment the US and the UN have felt entitled to force on non-European countries when their own policies are even murkier than those that they claim to oppose. This irony wasnt lost on African leaders. In the US, gay marriages are not recognized in some states. So how does it expect other countries to listen to it? asked Godwyns Onwucheka, head of the organization Justice for Gay Africans. The obvious implication is that we expect them to listen just because were the United States and theyre nations

of Africa. Thats not to say that our pro-gay leaders shouldnt publicly endorse global gay rights, because of course they should. But they ought to at least acknowledge that, when it comes to gay rights, were hardly ahead of Africa. Its the way we look down on Africa as such an unjust place when our own Land of the Free is so unjust that is the most offensive, and that the UN similarlyand rightlycondemns homophobia as an outdated

ILLUSTRATION BY SAMANTHA SARVET

institution makes the whole dynamic darkly laughable. Hilary Clintons statement is also wrong because, in a Foucaultian sense, homosexuality really is a Western invention. For millennia, homosexuality was just an act. But somewhere in the last two hundred and fifty years, Western gays became a group to be discriminated against, so that in identifying homosexuals as a class of people Clinton is helping to reinforce the constructions that have allowed for discrimination in the first place. The debate then becomes about gayness rather than universal human rights, so that even in its efforts to support gay rights the US only proves its backwardness. And so the global argument over African equality continues, just as it does in the United States. Itll be interesting to see how many African nations capitulate to the UNs demands before the United States itself does.

ADVERTISEMENT

In need of answers? Send your 99 Problems to the Pioneer Logs very own advice column for weekly reponses! LCs finest at your service! Email responses to piolog@gmail.com