Effective 1 August 2012, most healthcare plans will be
required to provide coverage for contraceptives without co-pay or deductible
expenses; in other words, “free” birth control for all who are covered under a
health plan. The idea is about
“liberty”, according to DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius who believes “this
proposal strikes a balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing
access to important preventive services.”
Churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship are exempt
from this requirement, according to “thehill.com”, but religious-affiliated
hospitals and universities will only have a one-year delay in implementation
before they will also be required to either provide this benefit or shut down
altogether.
The question stands as to what “balance” between respecting
religious denominations that stand opposed to artificial birth control and
one’s inferred “right” to birth control will actually look like, and whether
the rights of one group may supersede the rights of another. The US Constitution directly and specifically
addresses the protection of religious liberty in prohibiting the US government
from “infringing” upon these rights while the matter of health care is not
addressed at all. There is also another
standing question that would ask how, in a society in which birth control is
readily available, this proposal somehow “protects” or enhances a right which
evidently already exists.
This new regulation is only a small part of what will
incrementally roll down from so-called “Obamacare” that seeks to address a
genuine health care crisis in this country, but there is a significant element
of health care that still does not seem to have been sufficiently addressed: how
to define “adequate” care. More to the
specific point and coverage of birth control pills, is this a component of
health care that cannot be addressed in a more responsible and cost-effective
way like, say, abstinence and focusing one’s attention on something a little
more pressing like, say, getting a job or an education or otherwise living a
fulfilling life?
The tired argument has stood for quite some time that easier
access to birth control will diminish the need for abortion services (a fight,
incidentally, that remains to be settled in this debate!), but we must
understand there will be a reduction in services once hospitals and
universities withdraw from such programs altogether. Whether these or any others will actually
close their doors rather than submit to enforcement of such overbearing
regulations remains to be seen.
Artificial birth control is itself an issue that has been
addressed by the Roman Catholic Church; which stands consistently and
officially opposed to the use of such contraceptives, believing and teaching
that procreation is as much a matter of natural law as of religious
doctrine. However, the issue at hand is
not birth control itself but whether entities, regardless of religious
affiliation, should be expected or forced to provide birth control pills “free”
of any charge.
Subsequent to this issue, then, is the reality that
insurance is a pool of funds into which members contribute to the pool to cover
extraordinary expenses related to claims; meaning each participant will be
paying for something they may find socially questionable or morally
objectionable. The point becomes even
more acute if the courts decide the federal government can force everyone to
purchase health insurance, a matter pending before the US Supreme Court.
So the issue at hand cannot be a matter of whether or not
one is ok with birth control. It
certainly cannot be a matter of whether married persons are more entitled to
birth control than single persons. The
issue at hand is a conflict between a perceived right and an enumerated right;
that which may or may not be inferred by the Constitution and that which is
spelled out. The issue is whether the
government is overreaching, trampling on an enumerated right in favor of a
social or political demand.
Access to birth control is determined and hindered only by
one’s personal preferences and choices.
Whether one’s right to such access is hindered by one’s inability or
unwillingness to pay seems a matter of government regulation, forcing “me” to
pay for “your” questionable claim. Pity.
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/205413-obama-administration-orders-health-plans-to-cover-birth-control-without-co-pays
No comments:
Post a Comment