Dear Mishka,

You said in an earlier exchange that;

“As a writer, I am trying to convey an opinion, not to present an entire case, and certainly not to present both sides of a case.”

May I say you have been true to that mantra with this piece.

You wrote; “President Obama has issued a dictatorial mandate that forces the free provision of birth control and sterilisation procedures to all American women "no matter where they work".”

Yet to the outsider only by the most blinkered thinking could one feel that was a reasonable interpretation of what occurred.

President Obama bent over backwards to accommodate the Catholic churches. He had originally exempted them from having to provide coverage for birth control but that wasn't good enough for the Bishops. They demanded Catholic universities and hospitals now be also exempt, something Obama compromised on by saying that those Catholic institutions which serve people of different or no faith would not have to pay for the birth control, instead it was to be covered, at no extra cost to the institutions, by the insurance companies.

Some of the heads of these institutions initially thanked Obama for the concession but then the Bishops and the Republicans have wound the issue up.

So what was the problem Obama trying to address?

Contraceptive measures are many times more expensive in the US compared to Australia. Even the humble Pill is at least 5 times the cost of what it would be to the average Australian and nearly 100 times the cost paid by a Health Care Card holder.

The amount of coverage available in the US varies but of the traditional indemnity plans about half did not cover any reversible contraception at all. Only 33% covered the pill and less than 15% covered the five major methods. Traditional HMO's are a little better but not much, yet 2/3s of American women of child bearing age relied on their health insurance to cover their medical expenses.

Interestingly sterilization is covered in almost nine in 10 plans of all types, and abortion in two-thirds.

Cont...

Cont...

The solution was easy. The average cost to provide full contraceptive coverage was less than $20 per employee per year. 80% was to come from the employer and 20% from the employee. Mandating it was certainly a socially progressive thing to do and something the large majority of Americans supported. Remember 98% of Catholic women will avail themselves of some form of contraception during their reproductive life. The Churches and affiliate organisations were exempt and the insurers were happy because every dollar spent on preventative measures saves them three in pregnacy related expenses.

It has been estimated that without publicly funded contraceptive services there would a 40% increase in abortions each year in the US.

Most people would sit back and say this was a good thing.

You do not.

I get that as a Catholic you have a position dictated to you that you feel is part of the package you have adopted and I certainly don't condemn you for it. You have taken it further by standing as a candidate in a Federal election for the DLP, a party which includes in its set of principles “the sacredness of human life, from conception until natural death, as the fundamental basis for all human rights”. In any case anyone with a young family inevitably finds some shift or strengthening in their perception of abortion when viewing the blessings of family, mind certainly did.

You are welcome to hold your views that a couple of dozen cells sailing past an unreceptive uterine wall is an abortion but when you paint this as an issue of a 'dictator' overthrowing the religious freedoms of Americans, when it patently isn't, you should expect to be challenged.

The obvious question one could ask is have you ever used contraceptives yourself? Yet that would of course be intrusive, though far less so than your Bishops actions one would think.

Dear csteele, wrt my statement 'President Obama has issued a dictatorial mandate that forces the free provision of birth control and sterilisation procedures to all American women "no matter where they work"' you may not like the words I used, but everything except the word 'dictatorial' is beyond question. Even the New York Times reported that the "compromise" wasn't actually meant as a compromise, the mandate does force the FREE provision of these drugs and procedures, and the "no matter where they work" is a direct quote. The exemption you refer to was so narrow that few Catholic employers qualified; perhaps you should read what Archbishop Chaput said on the matter: http://articles.philly.com/2012-02-12/news/31052361_1_human-services-social-service-public-funding

You yourself admit that contraception is expensive, giving the lie to your claim that insurance companies will cover the cost. Before the compromise: employers pay insurers who provide contraceptives. After the compromise: employers pay insurers who provide contraceptives. No change. Contraceptives are already publicly funded, and I have heard no indication either way, but if this mandate of employer-funded contraception is supposed to reduce public funding then it would suggest to me that it is funding women who can afford contraception to the detriment of those who cannot and could actually push up the abortion rate.

The bottom line is that I do not think the employer should pay for contraception. Sexual irresponsibility is bad enough as it is, we shouldn't force employers to subsidise it. (I don't think employers should be the providers of health care, full stop, I should add.)

(cont...)

(cont...)

Your 98% statistic is absurd and misleading - see my previous comments. And my views as to the value of nascent human life are largely irrelevant to the issue of conscience. Catholics are not trying to impose any restrictions on the availability of contraception; they are merely opposing a government order that Catholic employers pay for employees' contraception. Contraception is a product, not a right, and I don't think the government should have the ability to force anyone to buy a product they don't want. That is dictatorial.

As for your final question, it is a very personal one, but I'm happy to answer you. Firstly, I would note that Catholic women can legitimately use contraceptives for medical reasons (as long as they abstain at the time). I certainly have used them for that purpose (prior to marriage), and I would note that insurance plans would cover this as it wouldn't fall under preventative health care but under treatment. However, as a married woman, I don't even use NFP (though it seems to be just as effective as artificial contraception going by the number of people I've known who have fallen pregnant despite using the Pill and/or condoms) as I don't believe in "planning" children except in grave circumstances. I'm not one of those women for whom breastfeeding is a natural contraceptive, and I have had four complicated and difficult pregnancies in the space of five years. I understand where non-Catholics are coming from on this issue (as I haven't always been a Catholic), but I don't think it's at all unreasonable for Catholics to refuse to be involved in the purchase of something that violates their conscience.

I think it would be far less intrusive if people were simply allowed to buy what they want when they want instead of having contraceptives mandated by the government. What business is it of the government to decree free contraception for women?!

Come on Mishka, lets face reality. If they think that they have
any chance, the Catholic Church will use any means possible to enforce
its dogma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

It took decades for the people of Ireland, just to be allowed to
buy condoms, the pill and other means of contraception. The church
fought it all the way.

It took decades for people in Chile to be able to obtain a divorce,
again the church fought it all the way.

In Australia people would laugh at them if they tried to ban condoms,
so they are realists enough to not even try. So they are fighting
voluntary euthanasia and the members were still singing their Hail
Mary's when WA updated its abortion laws.

Fact it that the Catholic Church has no scruples, if it can get
away with enforcing its dogma on the rest of us, if it can achieve
it politically.

They have no respect for my right to freedom from religion, as they
demand their freedom of religion. That is a double standard, sorry.

Mishka Gora,

Perhaps instead of a gnashing of teeth and a wringing of hands, Catholics in the U.S. should put their energies into lobbying both parties for a universal health system. After all, (as someone commented on one of your links) it doesn't appear that too many Catholics feel it's an appropriate act of conscience to withhold their paying of taxes because some of it might be funnelled into government funding for Planned Parenthood.