Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
NewsOpinionReaders Respond

Why must Catholic bishops insist on trying to control women's lives?

Family PlanningChristianityRoman CatholicismRepublican PartySexually Transmitted Diseases

The argument by Catholic bishops and other conservatives that providing contraception and reproductive health services for all women is a denial of Catholics' religious freedom is without merit ("O'Brien's quixotic fight," Feb. 9). The law is not forcing anyone to use contraception. It is saying it should be available without cost for those who want it, even those employed by religious-run institutions like universities and hospitals.

Let's relegate to the past the many women who suffered debilitation or death because of too frequent pregnancies or sexually transmitted diseases. No priest or bishop has ever been pregnant or lost sleep worrying how the birth will turn out. Which of them has striven to provide for the physical, mental and moral health of their birth children, as well as money to help with their education?

Why are these men so focused on women's sex lives anyway — so certain they must fight to the death to control women? Doubtless many angry conservative men have wives and daughters who have used contraception. Otherwise their families should reasonably number 12-15 children and more. Most independent polls report that the majority of Catholic women of childbearing age use contraception.

This fight provides a feeding frenzy for conservative Republicans who tend to twist everything they don't like into a life and death struggle. I would bet that most American families and the men in them are glad they don't have to expect pregnancies and births every 10-12 months for the duration of a woman's fertile years.

Perhaps the bishops, et. al. should begin classes for men training them to want less sex, thereby reducing the pressure on women to use contraception. Whatever "compromise" comes it must not deny any women needing them the services essential towomen's healthand well being.

Cynthia Stokes Chideya

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
Family PlanningChristianityRoman CatholicismRepublican PartySexually Transmitted Diseases
  • Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]
    Why is Mikulski trying to 'fix' the Supreme Court's decision? [Letter]

    On her website, Sen. Barbara Mikulski proclaims that she is joining other senators to introduce a "legislative fix to protect women's health" following the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case. Whether you are for abortion or against abortion, whether...

  • Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]
    Pushy pro-lifers [Letter]

    Letter writer Mary Catalfamo claims that Planned Parenthood denies any pregnant women immediate, free access to the full spectrum of information and counseling ("Supreme Court decisions won't limit women's rights," July 9).

  • An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]
    An effort to shame, cloaked in the guise of women's empowerment [Letter]

    Regarding the recent rant by small business woman and political activist Michelle Jefferson ("Stop griping and get a grip, ladies," July 11), it seems that she missed the most basic and fundamental message of the women's movement in the last century: don't leave your sisters...

  • Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]
    Global needs: food and birth control [Letter]

    While writer Mike Gesker ("U.S. food aid still critical abroad," July 10) rightly affirms our commitment to sending food to poor countries, as a member of Catholic Relief Services he fails though to address the other side of this economic problem.

  • Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]
    Misreporting the Hobby Lobby decision [Letter]

    The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case was confined specifically to exempting some employers from having to pay for medications or procedures that terminate a pregnancy after conception ("Court sides with employers in contraception case," June 30).

  • Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]
    Hobby Lobby decision a case for Supreme Court term limits [Letter]

    The inane Hobby Lobby decision clearly shows it is time to set term limits for the judges of the Supreme Court ("Corporations vs. people," June 30). It is time to get rid of Justice Antonin Scalia — the smuggest among the high court's nine, and Clarence Thomas — the...

Comments
Loading