The word “Orwellian” is overused. Americans’ ears are nearly stopped to it. This makes it hard to characterize really Orwellian moments when they arise. One has arisen this week in the form of the Obama administration’s mandate requiring health-insurance policies to cover contraceptives and some forms of early abortion. I will “characterize” what’s happened therefore, without the aforementioned adjective, but in plain terms which leave a reader to understand that the government is channeling Orwell all the same by its: (1) speaking nonsense; (2) with a straight face; and (3) and claiming expert authority is on their side. (“Science” led to this government mandate, Secretary Sebelius insists! Wow, I’m scared now! You mean “scientists” have spoken? Well why didn’t she just say so in the first place? Then the rest of us would surely have just crawled off quietly! Not.)
This, without adjectives, is what the Obama administration has done. First, they have claimed that birth control is disease prevention. Obviously, no matter how much President Obama believes that an unwanted baby is “punish[ment],” by no stretch of the imagination are babies equivalent to disease. Further, “scientific” claims in the materials upon which Secretary Sebelius relies — that more birth control is the answer to unintended pregnancy, nonmarital births, and abortion — all rely on carefully cherry-picked studies on discrete populations. The most important data is not mentioned or addressed. But if you look at a time series correlation between government promotion of birth control and rates of all of the aforementioned outcomes, you find a direct relationship between more of the former and more of the latter. Whether it’s correlation or causation (and I believe causation is the far better empirically supported conclusion), in no sense has government contraception promotion “prevented” anything it claims to prevent. Even people who wholeheartedly hope that birth control will solve our problems can clearly see this. Currently, the population is and will continue to be saturated with mostly insurance-covered and government-subsidized (for the poor) birth control. All who want it can have it. Pushing unwilling individuals and employers and insurance companies to subsidize birth control further is unnecessary. Second, the Obama administration is calling early abortion contraception. By mandating coverage of drugs like the morning after pill, and Ella, and refusing to even mention the latter’s potential for destroying already begun human embryos, the government has not only redefined words, but disrespected women. As best expressed by feminist Germaine Greer: “Whether you feel that the creation and wastage of so many embryos is an important issue or not, you must see that the cynical deception of millions of women by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women as human beings.”
Third, the Obama administration has told religious employers and individuals who do not wish to buy or subsidize contraception and abortion, that neither the nation’s historic commitment to conscience protection nor its reliance upon religious health care and social-services providers really matters much, relative to the government’s irrational belief that contraception will fix what ails us. Again, even non-Catholic, non-religious American can understand what a slap in the face this is.
Fourth, the government has told Catholic employers and health-care and social-services providers that they have to cease serving non-Catholics in order to claim a conscience exemption. Undoubtedly, those who lobbied for this latest mandate would be happy to throw Catholic providers out of the health care and social services businesses. But it’s by no means clear that this is what average citizens want, particularly the poorest and most vulnerable disproportionately served by Catholic services, as well as ordinary citizens proud of America’s diverse array of private charitable initiatives. Those who lobbied for this assume that more state/tax supported services will rise up to take the place of conscientious providers. Good luck with that in the current and future economic environments!
As the Obama administration continues to pillage America’s tradition of conscience protection, and as they cherry-pick “science” to suit their irrational, fideistic belief in birth control and abortion, I am more and more coming to understand what led an earlier generation to take to the streets against “the man,” and “the establishment.” It’s a terrible spectacle — watching your own government lie, while claiming that it’s for the good of the citizenry.
— Helen M. Alvare is associate professor of law at George Mason University School of Law.
You're dead on right here. It surely is not their goal to further limit or eliminate healthcare options for the needy, but sure as rain that will be the outcome of this ill conceived plum for the abortion lobby.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What would Orwell say?"
How about: "I told you so."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOrwell hated the Catholic church you fool.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhether Orwell hated the Church or not, he still would still be appalled by the government handling of this. I don't see how calling names advances your position (whatever it is) at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're right, Helen. This was an abominable move by the Obama folks. This alone would be reason enough to vote against him next year, putting aside all the financial chicanery and so on...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe biggest lie of all is that the mandate is "free".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI took the family the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC. The area also contains Catholic University and I noticed what looks like another school called Trinity University. After doing a google search I found out Trinity Univ is a all-women's Catholic university. Among the distinguished alumni of Trinity U are Secretary Sebelius and Nancy Pelosi. If that is the most famous graduates from that school any committed Catholic would keep their daughters away from that place as much as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEven aside from the moral issues, financially this move is ridiculous. It's silly to buy "insurance" for an entirely predictable expense. (You don't buy auto insurance to cover the cost of putting gas in your car.) If a woman knows she will be using birth control pills, it makes more sense for her to pay for them out-of-pocket, rather than paying increased insurance premiums and having her insurer buy them. And if a woman has no intention of using birth control pills, it's outrageous to deny her the option of paying lower premiums for an insurance plan that doesn't cover them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere are plenty of 'predictable monthly prescriptions' that are not birth control. So I don't think you can use that as a strong argument against birth control insurance. Although, most monthly prescriptions are different from BC because they positively affect health and BC does not. An example would be thyroid supplements.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs with most good ideas, I have to ask: whose going to wind up paying for it? Is this mandate going to add to premiums, or will the cost be offset by less expense in the form of unwanted pregnancies? Let us not forget the human factor here, a woman on the pill is not protected from STDs, and she still has to TAKE it three weeks out of four, for it to be an effective method of birth control.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI know what Churchill would say:
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusesinking into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister and more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.
In a society where people have a great range of religious ideas or no religion at all, it's probably prudent to avoid making policy on the basis of one particular faith. After all, if we're really going to make it necessary to chose between religions, it will be perfectly reasonable to point out that Catholicism is a decrepit system of superstition that insults the intelligence of any free person. Your attempt to foist papal values on America may eventually backfire, especially since the political corruption of your church has been vividly and repeatedly revealed in the recent past. And of all things, it's in your interest not to pick a fight about birth control since even catholic laity won't follow you there. On the other hand, if you do insist on trying to run an inquisition in a free society, let's make sure that the full deplorable story of the church is taught in the public schools.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAd hominem rocks!!11! Or maybe ad churchinem? In either case, you're both incorrect and uncouth. Please go away.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou have the gall to sit there and claim that the science, which is supported by various studies and evidence, is wrong? Can you PROVE it? Who in the government said exactly that pregnancy was in anyway a 'disease'? Did anyone in any way suggest a baby is 'punishment'?
How easily we forget how risky pregnancy can be to an expectant mother and the numerous complications that can arise from it. Aside from the usual swelling of joints, nausea, backaches, weight gain and such. There's also the heightened risk of gestational diabetes, hyperemesis gravidarum, dropped (prolapsed) uterus, pre-eclampsia, placenta previa, embolism (blood clots), diastasis recti, diastasis recti, mitral valve stenosis and broken bones. Less common but serious complications include peripartum cardiomyopathy, cardiopulmonary arrest, magnesium toxicity, severe hypoxemia/acidosis, massive embolism, increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction and of course, death.
And let's not forget postpartum depression and even, in rare cases, postpartum psychosis.
Pregnancy can be one of the most risky things of a woman's life, effecting not only her health, but the health of her unborn child and even those around her. It is ONLY thanks to numerous scientific advances in medicine that we are able to deal with and treat many of these conditions and have advanced to the point where, thankfully, mortally rates among new mothers and newborns have dropped significantly compared to a century ago. The fact is that most insurance companies DON'T cover birth control and even modest co-pays prove to be too much for many women and they're forced to make difficult choices, And yet most insurance covers male enhancement drugs like Viagra. Not exactly fair or equal, ya think?
Yet despite this, you think that providing the means of delaying pregnancy in women until they are ready and willing to have and provide for them, thereby reducing the number or women and children living in poverty, is a BAD thing?
Last I checked, personal conscience of individuals is not a reason to deny other people coverages they will use. The coverage is there for those who NEED it. And most women in America, including married women, DO.
Simply put; not everyone in this nation is Catholic or even Christian. Why should everyone in this country be made to abide by THEIR standards?
If everyone got to vote on what kind of coverage other people got, insurance would be impossible. Therefore, it's not up to vote.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse