Like countless other women, we’ve been closely following the Obama administration’s attempt to compel religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage in violation of their beliefs. And like countless other women, over the past several days we’ve heard House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and others repeatedly ask those who oppose the contraceptive mandate, “Where are the women?”
Here we are.
Advertisement
We listened to prominent women purport to speak for us. We watched them duck the fundamental religious-liberty issues at stake. And we saw them assume that all women view cheaper contraceptives and abortion-causing drugs as unqualified goods.
In response, we circulated an open letter to a few dozen of our female friends in support of the competing voice offered by Catholic institutions on matters of sex, marriage, and family life. The letter spread, and in 72 hours we received some 750 signatures from a diverse group of women across the country, including women serving overseas. Signatures are still flooding in. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, mothers, business owners, community volunteers, scholars — women from all walks of life are proud to stand together with the Catholic Church and its invaluable witness.
Most of us are Catholic, but some are not. We are Democrats, Republicans, and independents. Many work or have worked for a Catholic institution. We are proud to have been associated not only with the work that Catholic institutions perform in the community — particularly for the most vulnerable — but also with the shared sense of purpose found among colleagues who chose their job because, in a religious institution, a job is also a vocation.
To a woman, we are deeply troubled by the mandate’s violation of fundamental religious-liberty protections. Detailed analyses of the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act issues at stake here have already appeared in these pages. But we note that under RFRA, the government cannot substantially burden religious freedom unless the burden furthers a compelling government interest and is the “least restrictive” means of furthering that interest. Yet in the face of widespread opposition, the Obama administration was able to quickly revise the mandate to a version it (wrongly) considers “less restrictive” than its original proposal. That tells you all you need to know about how seriously the administration took its obligation to abide by RFRA in the first place.
Those who invoke “women’s health” against those of us who disagree with forcing religious institutions or individuals to violate deeply held beliefs are more than a little mistaken — and more than a little dishonest. Even setting aside their simplistic equation of “costless” birth control with “equality” and “women’s health,” note that they have never responded to the large body of scholarly research indicating that many forms of contraception have serious side effects; or that some contraceptives destroy embryos; or that government contraceptive programs inevitably change the sex, dating, and marriage markets in ways that lead to more empty sex, more non-marital births, and more abortions. It is women who suffer disproportionately when these things happen.
No one speaks for all women on these issues. Those who purport to do so are simply attempting to deflect attention from the serious religious-liberty issues at stake. We are proud to stand with the Catholic Church and its rich, life-affirming teachings on sex, marriage, and family life. We call on President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and our representatives in Congress to respect religious voices, to respect religious liberty, and to allow religious institutions and individuals to continue to provide witness to their faiths in all their fullness.
— Helen M. Alvaré is an associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law, the chair of the Witherspoon Task Force on Conscience Protection, and a consultant to the Pontifical Council for the Laity. Kim Daniels is former counsel to the Thomas More Law Center, where she focused on health-care rights of conscience. Visit womenspeakforthemselves.com to sign the letter yourself.
If a woman wants to have sex, it is absolutely her right to do so. But how can it be anyone's responsibility but her own to take the steps necessary to prevent pregnancy. To argue that it's the church's responsibility paints women as the weaker sex, and I refuse to believe that.
Nobody is arguing that it's the church's responsibility. The church simply states that there are things that objectify human beings. But, people have the freedom to accept or reject this.
Health is not an issue at all. Pregnancy is a completely natural and healthy condition for an adult female.
"Women's health" is nothing but a smokescreen for the hedonistic philosophy that everyone should be able to have sex with pretty much anything that moves without incurring any consequences of any kind.
That is absolutely not a healthy lifestyle -- physically, mentally, or emotionally.
Under the leadership of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, I've learned that the only people who count, whether they be women or some other politically expedient voting block, are those who agree with and will likely vote for Democrats. When Nancy Pelosi asked "Where are the women?" her question was directed to women who support free contraceptives for all, not all women. Nancy Pelosi has for a very long time been an embarrassment to the Catholic Church and those who follow her example are no better. Whether she's lecturing the Pope on Church doctrine or promoting behavior the Church views as sinful, she is not a sterling example for any American woman, but especially not for Catholic women.
There are times when it's easier to ignore what our faith expects of us and this is one of those times for Catholics who support the HHS mandate. Remember when Catholic politicians who supported abortion rights claimed they did so only because Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, not because they favored abortion in their personal lives? It seems they've now abandoned the "personal" excuse along with their consciences. Setting aside the First Amendment implications of forcing people to forsake their religious beliefs in order to appease a critical voting block, the government shouldn't be using private money to hand out free birth control pills to women who can afford to buy their own while less fortunate Americans struggle to pay for life-saving medical treatments.
I am a woman, and I too vehemently disagree with the HHS mandate. I am not uneducated. I am not waging a war on my own gender (or on anyone) and I am tired of my convictions being discounted. My hope is that more woman will speak up and be counted. The Nancy Pelosi's of the world don't speak for me, but I will tell you who does...the Religious Congregations of Catholic Nuns who have spoken publicly with official statements regarding this issue. One such Order is the Dominican Sisters of St. Cecilia Congregation, aka the 'Nashville Dominicans'. I am posting a link to their statement which you can read here: External Link They were the first Order to speak out, and I admire their chutzpa! They also own and teach at a number of Catholic schools, so this mandate is extremely disturbing to them, and they are not afraid to say so. God bless them, and all the women who fight for religious liberty!
Your position is such a distortion of the issue, and seems to be done only to find another way to attack Obama.
No one is restricting anyone's religious freedom. Anyone is still free to practice their beliefs on birth control, sex, the Bible, the Koran or anything they choose.
But if the Catholic Church employs people who are not clergy they should not have the right to force their beliefs upon those employees.That is religious oppression.
When the Christian Science Church employs people they give them full health benefits that allows the employee to see doctors. That is not what their church teaches but they are held to the rules of the state. Why should Catholics be different. They have already proved that they do not know enough about legal boundaries. Their thinking they should get special treatment is unconstitutional.
No one has to work for the Catholic Church or any other religious group. If I was unemployed, I would not take a job with a religious entity whose views I do not share. I have the right to do that. I did not realize that the Christian Scientists were forced to pay for health care for their employees that goes against their beliefs. I believe that this, too, is a violation of their religious liberty. No one should have to do something that they believe endangers their immortal soul in order to provide something to someone else. All of these services are available in the marketplace and no one is preventing people from purchasing them. I do not want to pay for someone else to have birth control, abortions, sex change operations, etc. If they want to pay for these services, that is between them and their conscience. Please let me be at peace with my conscience.
DJB "But if the Catholic Church employs people who are not clergy they should not have the right to force their beliefs upon those employees.That is religious oppression."
So if those people force the Catholic Church to do something against its core beliefs, then that is not religious oppression? Women who are not provided birth control and abortions by the Church are'nt oppressed at all. The Church is not forcing them to do anything. They however (and the Obama Administration) are forcing the Church. Who is the real oppressor?
If there was only a desire to attack Obama, I am sure we could find a less objectable charge. Anyway, "No one is restricting anyone's religious freedom. Anyone is still free to practice their beliefs on birth control, sex, the Bible, the Koran or anything they choose. " is complete BS! part of Catholic Church Doctrine is the spreading of our faith, which means making all aware of the sins that they are committing. We are also not allowed to be enablers of sins, especially ones that are inherently evil and immoral.
What about the woman who aren't catholic and do want contraceptives but work for catholic organization? Just because you believe it's wrong doesn't mean they do, and they shouldn't have to suffer just because you hate science.
Then they can go out and buy it themselves. If they don't like their employer's code of conduct, they can find another employer. Heck, if their plan has an HSA, the IRS allows that HSA to cover it.
I know I know, pesky facts getting in the way of a rant. Oh, and if you assume the authors 'hate science' can we assume you 'hate religion'? Fair is fair after all.
Where precisely in the constitution is the right to free birth control? Hmmm? You go right ahead and point out exactly which part of the constitution says that you or anyone else have the right to free birth control or free health care? Hasn't science proved that life DOES begin at conception? I would hardly call that hatred of science.
It is interesting that Pelosi and others such as Joan Walsh of Salon have tried to spin this issue as a GOP 'war on women'. Yes, indeed there has been a 'war on women, but not the one they think it is. What about the endless war of people like Schaffly, Bruce, Coulter, Jan Brewer, and of course the concerted attempt to utterly destroy Sarah palin and her family?
In the UK the Catholic adoption agencies objected to being forced to place children with homosexual couples because the church views it as a sin. The courts decided the church was in the wrong and the adoption agencies were closed down. Result, children are not being adopted and remain in statutory care longer than necessary.
@Norm UK, This is exactly what happened in Massachusetts. When homosexual marriage became legal gay couples took Catholic adoption agencies to court for refusing to place children in homosexual households. The Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down leaving one to conclude that the homosexual community places attacking the Catholic church above the welfare of children.
This gives the appearance that the homosexual agenda won't tolerate mutual existence with any religious institution that doesn't wholeheartedly accept homosexuality as normal. It's not just the Catholics who are ultimately attacked, it's the Mormons, the Amish, Evangelicals, Pentecostals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims....
DJB: 'Their thinking they should get special treatment is unconstitutional.'
So.
Thinking that our government should have restictions on what it can shove down our throats is to expect 'special treatment'?
Are you so in the bag with the man that you think we must automatically accept anything they want to subject us to?
Do you really believe that the constitution was put in place as a restriction on it's own citizens as opposed to their government?
I completely support the church's right to offer selective healthcare coverage if they choose. The issue is whether that right extends to any employer. I don't believe the federal government has standing to force any employer to provide health insurance, however they do have standing to ensure that employees are treated fairly and equally.
If an employer does not wish to provide prescription coverage that would go against their personal beliefs, they should not be forced to. However, that means that they should not be able offer prescription coverage to any of their employees. Offering coverage for blood pressure medications but not migraine medications because that migraine medication has an anovulatory side effect is discriminatory.
Women use prescription contraceptives for numerous medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy, including preserving fertility. I had severe endometriosis and took birth control pills before I was sexually active, so that after I was married I would actually be able to have children. I don't understand how that goes against anyone's faith. However, should my employer wish to not cover my medication, he is free to do so. But he is not free to single out women's medication. He must therefore decide not to offer any of his employees prescription coverage.
