It is a remarkable time in current events when we witness a major media outlet calling out a liberal president for disregarding the moral tenets of the Catholic Church. But that’s exactly what happened when the USA Today editorial board concluded that the Obama administration’s so-called contraceptive mandate “not only crossed the line. It galloped over it.”
The accompanying opposing view authored by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is breath-taking in its audacity. The USA Today editorial actually did a decent job of debunking three lines of defense that the Obama administration is spouting. While a much longer treatment is called for, here’s three quick facts that everyone should know:
1) It’s an abortifacient mandate; not just a “contraceptive mandate.” The HHS rule requires large employers to provide insurance for free sterilizations, abortion-inducing drugs, and artificial contraceptives. Our side would do well to refer to it as the “abortifacient mandate.”
2) The religious exemption is absolutely meaningless. The so-called religious exemption is written so narrowly that, as one commentator noted, even Jesus and his twelve disciples wouldn’t qualify. Here’s why: A “religious employer” is defined in the rule as an organization that meets all four of the following criteria: (1) the organization’s purpose is the inculcation of religious values (Catholic food banks are out); (2) the organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic universities are out); (3) the organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization (Catholic hospitals are out); and (4) the organization is a nonprofit that is a house of worship or religious order. Given that houses of worship and religious orders exist with a mission to serve the least amongst us regardless of their faith, that means requirement (3) is not met, so everyone is out.
3) Contraceptive drugs are carcinogenic. It’s one thing for Secretary Sebelius to champion the pill for what she sees as a requirement for women’s freedom and autonomy. That’s an argument for another day. But the secretary goes beyond that to claim that artificial contraceptives “have significant benefits for [women’s] health, as well as the health of their children.” Well. It’s hard to believe that the secretary is not aware that combined estrogen progestogen oral contraceptives (COCs) are classified as “Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. The American Cancer Society website has published that list, where the pill ranks along side asbestos, coal tar, benzene, and tobacco products.
Secretary Sebelius and the White House claim the HHS mandate “respects” religious liberty. They’ve shown about as much respect for the First Amendment as they have for the truth.
UPDATE: The NCI’s Q and A on oral contraceptives and cancer risk can be reviewed here.
— Nikolas T. Nikas and Dorinda C. Bordlee are the founders of the Bioethics Defense Fund, a public interest legal and educational organization. The attorneys of The Becket Fund have compiled a more in-depth fact sheet about the White House’s false HHS claims that can be reviewed here.
Point 3 is a bit misleading. The carcinogenic effect predominantly occurs when the drugs are used postmenopausally--that is, when they're not used as contraception at all. Here is how they appear on the list:
Estrogen postmenopausal therapy
Estrogen-progestogen postmenopausal therapy (combined)
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)
As the last point suggests, the evidence that these drugs are carcinogenic when used as contraceptives is mixed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks Lorraine for raising that as we couldn't get too in depth in this short Corner piece. As typical of the pro-pill, pro-abortion bias of the national cancer groups, they didn't mention in the parenthetical that the pill increases the risk of liver cancer and breast cancer. Everyone can get more in-depth info on the carcinogenic effect of oral contraceptives straight from the National Cancer Institute here:
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Pro-pill, pro-abortion bias"? Let's look at the facts:
Thanks for the reply and the additional information. I'm puzzled about your claim of bias, though. Let's look at the facts:
1) The list states that the Pill is a carcinogen.
2) The list doesn't state the *kind* of cancer that the Pill causes, but it doesn't provide this information for the vast majority of substances on the list. Thus the Pill is treated like every other drug.
3) The list specifies the kinds of cancers that might be *treated* by the drug. It does this with tamoxifen as well as the Pill. Once again, the Pill is treated like every other drug. I suspect the idea is to portray the substance as *generally* harmful except under certain specified conditions.
There's no evidence for bias here at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour link to the National Cancer Institute is interesting. I was not aware that taking oral contraceptives reduces the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't agree with what Obama's doing here (I'd like to see a larger religious exemption - despite being an atheist, I think the establishment clause is a good thing, and if it means anything the government needs to give religious organizations a significant amount of leeway), but point #3 is ridiculous. Whatever carcinogenic effects the pill may have, it's still more dangerous to a woman's health to carry a pregnancy to term than not - giving birth is, despite all our best efforts, still pretty dangerous. If we're just talking about relative risk analysis, the pill wins hands down.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusereally!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseamazing!
walking and breathing can be dangerous, too.
I find it laughable that people still claim that the primary thing the female body is geared towards (carrying and bearing children) is still considered incredibly dangerous. Maybe that's because OBs have NO CLUE about natural birth or how to birth properly. If you do some research, America's maternal fatality statistics are abysmal compared to every western nation with an advanced health care system. We have some cities in this country with a maternal death rate similar to that of Cuba (what an advancement), and that's without laws requiring accurate recording of maternal deaths as such (46 states have no law requiring the proper recording of maternal death). Maybe that's because women a) don't know how to prepare for birth (our sedentary lifestyle is to blame) , b) the vast majority get an epidural, which forces women to be on their back with their legs in an awkward position, which is the worst position to give birth in aside from hanging upside down, c) squatting has been shown to be the most effective/advantageous birthing position as it opens the pelvis an extra 10-15%, but who's allowed to squat when their lower half is paralyzed, and d) our C-section rate is hovering around 33%, which, if you aren't aware, is actual major surgery, which brings along with it all the risks of major surgery.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn 2003 the World Health organization classified oral contraceptives as Group 1 carcinogens (with tobacco and asbestos, etc.).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTaking these pills for four years BEFORE YOUR FIRST FULL TERM PREGNANCY increase the risk of Triple negative breast cancer by 347%.
THat's long before old age!!
port1080, that's a funny take on the risk analysis, becuase if you look at the total picture since the pill was first introduced a lot of things began to happen. Mind you the sexual revolution played a hand in it to, but I would go so far as to say that even that would not have had the lasting impact on our society had it not been for the pill. #1 Sex outside of marriage sky rocketed
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse#2 STD's rose faster than anyone could have ever predicted, not to mention that there are now more kinds of STD's today than there was even in the 1960's.
#3 Divorce rose to roughly 50%.
#4 Unplanned pregnancies rose after the introduction of the pill, not declined (and that's held true in every civilization that has adopted use of artificial contraception)
#5 The pill does not protect against HIV
#6 Abortion rose at about the same rate as use of artificial contraception due to it's poor use effectiveness.
#7 The pill can work as an abortifacient, if a woman misses one pill or takes it at the wrong time, she can concieve, and then upon further use of the pill the baby would be unable to implant in the uterus, thus causing an abortion.
I could go on, but I need to get back to my life. I do have one question though, exactly where did you get your facts about birth being so lethal to a woman's health? From the early 1900's?? Because that is simply not true today. More can be done today not just for the woman who's pregnant, but also for the life of the unborn child. Get more recent facts from a source not connected to planned parenthood.
"1) It’s an abortifacient mandate; not just a “contraceptive mandate.” The HHS rule requires large employers to provide insurance for free sterilizations, abortion-inducing drugs, and artificial contraceptions. Our side would do well to refer to it as the “abortifacient mandate.”"
Also...by what definition is voluntary sterilization "abortion"? Are you essentially saying that your side would do well to be lying? That's not very Christian.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe the authors were just listing everything covered, so as to point out that some of the covered things involve abortion. It's rather tendentious to read a suggestion that the authors are attempting to equate sterilization with abortion into that sentence.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe inclusion of sterilzation in this statement is unnecessary. The mandate does include abortion inducing drugs, oral contraceptives being one of them. The HHS mandate is an abortifacient mandate. To call it such would not be a lie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read the the HHS Interim Final Rule as a lawyer, not as a Christian. Sterilization is expressly listed. That is separate from conceptives or abortion-inducing drugs. The abortion-inducing drugs I refer to are chemicals that are designed to cause the already conceived embryo to be expelled. The FDA has chosen the semantics of calling these drugs "contraceptives." Contraceptives are actually drugs designed to suppress ovulation, with the intent of avoiding the creation of the human embryo. The bottom line is that no one has to ascribe to the moral teachings of the Church against abortion, sterilization and conception to understand that the First Amendment requires that the Government not force individuals to engage in or pay for practices they consider immoral and against their faith. Ask yourself if it would be in keeping with religious liberty for the government to mandate that Buddhist vegetarian restaurants serve meat to protect the access of carnivores to hamburgers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't get the whole vegetarian thing, but I'd never support the government forcing Buddhist's to provide my steaks, or even pay for me to get a steak elsewhere. This is one place where the anti-Christian bigotry has no place. If you value the human right to religious liberty, you might want to reconsider the hostility and snarky comments, and take a long hard look at what the Obama administration is doing to our nation's core liberties.
"Contraceptives are actually drugs designed to suppress ovulation, with the intent of avoiding the creation of the human embryo."
Um, I'm pretty sure that Condoms are also considered to be contraceptives, and they don't do that. Not only that, but the Pill - the most popular contraceptive - works in a variety of different ways, with the suppression of ovulation only being one of them. This is a little sloppy on your part.
"This is one place where the anti-Christian bigotry has no place."
This has nothing to do with 'anti-Christian bigotry,' as the VAST majority of Christian (and Catholic!) men and women have already decided that the use of contraceptives is an acceptable thing for them to do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This has nothing to do with 'anti-Christian bigotry,' as the VAST majority of Christian (and Catholic!) men and women have already decided that the use of contraceptives is an acceptable thing for them to do."
Nice lefty talking point. It doesn't matter if tons of Catholics and Christians use contraception. That is a choice made by them either out of sheer defiance and "Cafeteria" like thinking regarding their religions' tenets, or because they made a choice of conscience which the Catholic Church actually teaches and permits.
The trouble with the mandate is that it is asking the Church through its affiliates (hospitals, schools and the like) to pay for things that it preaches out against - contraception and abortion.
That is a direct violation of the First Amendment - Congress may not prohibit the free exercise thereof (referring to freedom of religion).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"...the VAST majority of Christian (and Catholic!) men and women have already decided that the use of contraceptives is an acceptable thing for them to do."
This has, well, nothing to do with the situation at hand. Nothing at all.
The laity do not get to select which of the Catholic teachings they choose not to follow and then compel the Catholic Church to bend to their will. Your argument suggests that the government is doing nothing more than codifying what the "VAST majority" of Catholics already believe - birth control is no big deal - and that the Catholic Church should accept this or else government will force the issue.
I posit that the Catholic Church will not bend to this government mandate and that this will put US Catholic Church leaders at risk of government prosecution.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the First Amendment requires that the Government not force individuals to engage in or pay for practices they consider immoral and against their faith."
Nobody thinks that this is true--at least, not the bit about "paying for" such practices. Consider:
* If I consider the death penalty against my faith, tough cookies. I don't get a tax reduction, and my objection means nothing.
* If I consider the Iraq war against my faith, tough cookies. I can conscientiously object, but I don't get a tax break.
* If I consider government-funded invasive research on animals against my faith, tough cookies. I don't get a tax break.
I could go on, but I trust I don't need to. It might be nice if the government provided an a la carte menu, but it doesn't and probably can't. The argument about forced payment doesn't fly; you and your colleagues would do well to dispatch with it as soon as possible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe big difference here is that the government is forcing the Church to enter into a business transaction with a group selling a product that they do not wish to buy, a product which in fact is expressly against the doctrines of their religion.
You see, in a free society we should be able to pick the products and services we buy. We can't however pick our government. If we could I would have purchased a different government over the past 3 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll of the examples you give are of the government adopting a policy and taking action. There's a huge difference between that and the government mandating private religious institutions to spend money in a particular way. If the Feds were stepping in to say, "We will pay for these things if your employer does not," that would not violate anyone's First Amendment rights.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust what is this faith you hold that objects to the examples you use? I suppose you are waiting for an assault on "peaceable assembly" before you wake up to the fact that it is no longer your Constitutional right to protest the death penalty, war, animal research.and the litany of other examples you say you have..
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse