The statistic is that 98% of Catholic women use birth control, but I know from my mathematician cousin that one could basically make a statistic bend to almost any idea. This 98% takes into account all Catholic women, even those who don’t attend regular mass. The statistic might be more accurate if the statisticians out there did a study of the child-bearing age women who regularly attend mass, how many of them use some sort of birth control, chemical or otherwise (including sterilization). And of the women studied, how many of their husbands have undergone vasectomy. In effect, a study should take into account the couples’ use of birth control. I have the feeling that the statistic might still be quite high. One study pointed to 87% of women, ages 15-44, who attend regular mass, and who’ve had sex in the past 3 months, have used contraception. But since the article I got this information from didn’t have a clear and reputable source, I can’t in good conscience use this statistic. I Googled again and again, searching for what might be an accurate statistic, but the answer remains hidden.
President Obama, in effort to extend liberty to all women, regardless of employment, passed a mandate to require all insurance companies to cover birth control 100%, even if the woman works for a church, or religious private school or university, or social work agency. This mandate came on the heels of trying to pass a mandate that all organizations, religious affiliation aside, must give women the option of birth control for their health care. This was in clear defiance of separation of church and state, and the bill was shot down. Obama is said to have undermined the organizations’ rights and went straight to the sources of healthcare coverage, being the insurance companies, and passed the mandate that way. The people in these religious organizations feel slighted, and I’m not sure that I blame them, because it didn’t matter what they wanted.
I wonder though, if one can attack this issue from a different angle. Have you ever said to someone, or heard someone say to you, “I don’t agree with you, but I support you anyway”? What does this mean? Is “support” synonymous with what one believes in? For instance, a parent might “support” a child’s decision to go to college for theater, but since the child chose such an unrealistic major in the parent’s eyes, the parent will no longer pay for the child’s college tuition as originally assumed. Does the “support” that the parent agreed to offer mean emotional support? And if it does, what does that mean? Does it mean that for the 4 or 5 years that child is in college, the parent won’t rag on the child’s choice for a theater degree? Does support mean the absence of negative comments along with absence of the positive? I think I would assert that anything that someone supports with their pocket books is synonymous with what that person agrees with. And so, when an organization like the Boy Scouts back in the 90s decides to allow homosexual males to participate, people flocked together to withdraw their support (meaning their good word and their money), regardless of the many agreed upon “good” things that the organization had been doing at that point in its existence.
When I decided that I would marry Jeremy regardless of the opinions of my family, friends, and church leaders, support, emotional and physical, was withdrawn, because you see, one can only support something or someone he or she agrees with. Why is it that people in our society feel spiritually responsible for other people’s choices independent of what others might agree with? The people in the Catholic church feel that it is their spiritual responsibility to make sure that they are not contributing first hand to something that they don’t agree with. I understand that. It must be an awfully uncomfortable situation to be in, but is making sure that an organization doesn’t support birth control by paying for a government mandated insurance company really solving the issue?
The managers of that organization sign off on the employees’ checks. How can they know that the money given to the employee isn’t used to pay for chemical birth control, a diaphragm or cervical cap, or sterilization at the person’s medical clinic, or for a box of condoms at the nearest Piggly Wiggly? That would be contributing first hand to the use of birth control, wouldn’t it? But is ignorance really an excuse, knowing that a possible 87% Catholic women who regularly attend mass use birth control? And that’s assuming that all of an organization’s employees regularly attend mass. Should any religious organization that is against blood transfusions, narcotics, stimulants of any sort, and immunizations be able to stipulate coverage by the insurance company services that are almost always covered by companies in certain situations. And even then, how do the people who sign the checks of the employees of those organizations know that their employees aren’t paying out-of-pocket for these services, and thus, the organization is contributing first hand to something that is frowned upon by the agreed upon beliefs of the organization? I’ll ask again, why do we take it upon ourselves to be spiritually responsible for the choices of the many? I would assert that unless more control is exercised over the people employed by these organizations, it is impossible to know unless every cent the employee makes will be accounted for. With that in mind, is ignorance still an excuse?
My first response when I heard about the birth control mandate was, “Of course, with the separation of church and state, we must allow the organizations do what they want.” But if I were to commit wholly to this idea, things like young girls being given in plural marriages and female castration would be protected under the letter of the law.
I would assert that easing one’s conscience either way is an impossibility, and maybe loosening the reigns of control might be a more humane thing to do. If we are a nation that truly believes in freedom, we will need to learn to sit with reality that we won’t ever be able to fully reconcile our beliefs to everyone, and that there will be some who’ll disagree, but that doesn’t mean we should exercise more control in order to ease our own consciences.
No comments:
Post a Comment