A recent provision of President Obama’s extensive healthcare policy has called for all businesses, including religious organizations, to cover expenses associated with birth control. Critics have argued that because some religious principles proscribe its faithful members from using birth control, the provision is an egregious abridgment of their religious freedom.
The focus of the debate has been on one form of “birth control,” namely the prevention of fertilization. Some religious organizations have been zealous advocates of using only natural means of preventing pregnancy. For example, under Roman Catholic canon, the only form of birth control morally permissible is natural family planning. The Church encourages members to use the “rhythm method” to prevent pregnancy. The rhythm method promotes the scientifically inconclusive idea that refraining from intercourse during ovulation will not result in pregnancy.
Although I agree with the criticism that the provision oversteps the boundary between church and state, my grounds for disagreement do not concern preventive measures of birth control. I argue that the government should not force religious organizations or insurance companies to provide birth control measures that promote pregnancy.
(Note: On Friday, the Obama administration revised the original measure. They agreed with critics that it was too invasive. So, they have revised it to say that insurance companies are responsible for providing birth control measures. My criticism still applies, though most critics — since the announcement — have gone silent. Even the most sophisticated arguments opposing the measure fail to consider two important issues: (a) more substantive forms of preventive birth control, e.g., vasectomies or tubal occlusion that might result in substantive unintended health effects and (b) measure that promote pregnancy, e.g., in vitro fertilization or virility drugs.)
Healthcare is a human right. And the government should guarantee freedom from interference of one’s health, whether that’s in regulating insurance companies or business organizations. Guaranteeing such a fundamental human right will include providing measures that prevent pregnancy and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Thus, if the government is to protect us, then it should provide us with preventive measures of birth control, including but not limited to condoms, birth control pills, intrauterine devices, etc. Recent debate has ignored how the current “birth control” legislation could be used by those who have selfish or self-interested preferences. Because of the ambiguity of the way the legislation is written, it is easy to see that the insurance providers could be forced to pay for extensive medical bills associated with promoting bearing and having a child.
Whereas a few years ago having several children was the norm to guarantee that at least one grows to become an adult, our healthcare system has improved such that we know that having one or two children typically means that they will grow to be an adult — without much worry of contracting a life-ending disease, infection, or other illness. Despite this, many affluent married couples choose to have six, seven, eight children not because they fear that some or most of them will die before they grow into adults but because of their own selfish or self-interested reasons. Ask a couple why they want children and they will likely respond that they “just want them” or “they’re so cute.“ Neither of these self-interested desires is sufficient reason for having a child. (This argument does not carry over to cases of adults choosing to adopt a child for reasons I will not explain in this blog post.) Thus, I cannot support insurance companies providing these kinds of couples with the “tools” to procreate on-demand.
Birth control measures include promoting child bearing and birth. Religious organizations typically oppose preventive measures because they’re artificial. When we think of what medical doctors are able to do these days, one of them is to assist couples to have children. They may prescribe fertility drugs, consult couples having difficulty conceiving a child, etc. In each of these cases, however, the doctors are acting positively towards promoting some end using artificial means. Forcing insurance companies to provide the means to promote child birth may include the introduction of artificial means too. So, if it’s the device’s artificial nature religious organizations oppose, then they should agree that both promotional and preventive measures ought to be opposed.
If a critic were to argue that the promotion of child birth is significantly different from its prevention, I would have to agree. Promoting child rearing is far more invasive and more expensive than preventing it. Insurance companies would be forced to pay for procedures the doctor would have to perform on the couple to determine why it is they cannot conceive. This would not be the case in terms of preventing pregnancy. Preventive measures are relatively cheap, and nothing further would be required of the insurance company. Additionally, in the case of preventive measures, responsibility would shift from the insurer to the person insured. Not so for promotional measures. In fact, responsibility would shift from the couple to the doctors, specialists, and insurance company. Thus, the two means of birth control are significantly different and this difference shows that one should be opposed to the promotion of child rearing more so than its prevention.
What this shows is that if members of religious organizations find preventive means of birth control morally reprehensible, then they should also argue that the promotion of child rearing equally morally objectionable.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
