Crafts and Contraception

First world problems.

I decided to start with an easy topic. Just Kidding! In light of the SCOTUS decision I decided to start with contraception, and religious freedom, which obviously are hard topics.

Contraception

I’ve been on birth control since I was 14. It started out as therapeutic for endometriosis, which was causing debilitating PMS. If I hadn’t had access to hormonal birth control as a teenager, I would have missed a lot more school. After I got married, it had the added benefit (IMO) of preventing pregnancy until Ryan and I were ready to start a family.

Now that we have Henry, I have a copper IUD. I chose this because it is a non-hormonal method, so I could still breastfeed Henry, while being protected from pregnancy as much as possible right after he was born. Henry was sort-of-planned, but the unfortunate truth is that if we were to have another child right now, we would be in very bad shape financially, since I am still a student. So for me, contraception has been a blessing.

From Wikipedia:

“The copper IUDs contain no hormones, but the copper ions in the cervical mucus are toxic to sperm. They also cause the uterus and fallopian tubes to produce a fluid that contains white blood cells, copper ions, enzymes, and prostaglandins, a combination that is also toxic to sperm.[35] The very high effectiveness of copper-releasing IUDs as emergency contraceptives implies they may also act by preventing implantation of the blastocyst.[37][38] In non-emergency use, prevention of implantation is at most an exceptional method of action, not a typical mechanism of action.[17]”

Now, I can see where those who believe life begins at conception would take issue with the exceptional method of action at work here - namely preventing implantation. However I do not share that belief, and I feel no guilt about using an IUD. Lost embryos are just a part of the reproductive process in humans. From UCSF Medical Center, "Conception: How it Works"

"In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses."

Just adding a little levity, folks.

Religious Freedom

We all know what happened yestetday. SCOTUS ruled in a 5-4 decision that closely held corporations are eligible for an exemption from the contraception coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act if they/their owners have a sincerely held religious belief against the use of contraception.

I’ve tried to educate myself about what events led to this case even being a thing. The opinion and dissent lay it all out: The ACA says that employers have to provide health insurance to full time employees. Okay. That means nothing if we don’t define what “health insurance” is. Otherwise your boss could hand you a band-aid labelled “health insurance.” So, the ACA defines health insurance. One facet of that definition, which was added as an amendment, is preventative health services for women. It is specified in the ACA that the Department of Health and Human Services will determine what qualifies as “preventative health services for women.” After the bill was passed, HHS determined a list of 20 contraceptives, including 2 emergency contraceptive pills, and 2 IUDs, that qualified. At the same time this amendment was proposed, so was an additional amendment allowing for-profit companies held by religious owners to opt-out of this requirement using the same mechanism in place for religious employers like churches. This amendment did not pass.

Here is the link to the opinion and dissent if you want to read the whole thing and educate yourself about more of the details: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby

Having read both the opinion and the dissent, here are my thoughts:

1. If the decision turns out the be as narrow in practice as it is claimed in the opinion, I will be relieved. Basically, the opinion states that this type of religious exemption will only be granted to contraception coverage in particular, not to things like vaccinations or blood transfusions (presumably because the government’s interest in stopping the spread of infectious disease is more substantial than the burden on religious employers). It also states that the HHS will be able to set up a system for employees of companies like Hobby Lobby to obtain coverage directly from the insurer with no cost-sharing to the employer (a system they currently have for religious employers like churches). As long as both of these predictions pan out, I can live with it. My fear is that this decision will bring on a wave of new cases (which admittedly may be decided differently) challenging the mandate to cover other services, or that the mechanism for employees to obtain contraception coverage directly from the insurance company will not come to fruition, leaving many women without access to emergency contraception and IUDs as an option (IUDs + insertion are expensive without insurance).

1b. It is also worth mentioning that the other “less restrictive alternative” proposed in the opinion is that the government itself provide the free contraceptives to employees of Hobby Lobby - so SCOTUS would be okay with taxpayers with sincerely held religious beliefs funding IUDs, just not corporations. Got it.

2. All that being said, I still disagree with the decision. I do not feel an adequate explanation was given in the opinion as to why this case does not set precedent for other types of exemptions. Clear examples were given in the arguments of other sincerely held religious beliefs that are in conflict with providing health care. For example, Scientologists do not believe in any sort of medicines for depression or anxiety, and there are several groups that do not believe in vaccinations. Is it simply because those beliefs are more fringe? The court is not supposed to hold an opinion on the validity or sincerity of the belief in question, only on whether it is substantially being burdened. Is it because “lady health care” is less important than mental health and infectious disease control? I suspect this is the real reason. Boo.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."  

~ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Conclusion

I am glad we have religious freedom in this country. It seems, however, we have a hard time agreeing about what exactly religious freedom means. We need to remember that religious freedom doesn’t just mean “freedom to be a Christian.” It applies equally to those of all faiths, and no faith at all.

For example, two SCOTUS decisions, in 1962 and 63, established that it was unlawful to lead prayer or have corporate readings of the Bible in public school. Many will say this was a bad thing, and act as though it has been made illegal to pray in school. On the contrary. Students may pray in school, but teachers and administrators may not force any student to pray. Imagine if your child had a teacher that was not from the same religious background as you, perhaps a buddhist history teacher. Would you want them leading your Christian child in Zen meditation every morning in homeroom?

Anyways, those of you who know me well know I love crafts. However, I will be putting my money where my mouth is and going to Michael’s from now on.