Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Eventually, the Catholic hierarchy will come around to the idea of birth control

As usual, the latest dust up over the Obama administration's decision to require church-affiliated employers to offer health-care insurance that covers contraceptives at no charge has generated more heat than light ("Obama's 'accommodation' wins support in birth control debate," Feb. 11).

Both sides in this tussle have made mean-spirited, divisive and unfair, if not outright untrue, claims about the other side and its supporters. Moreover, some recent letters decrying the policy are really missing the point.

Virtually all Americans support a religion's right to preach and practice its faith. This would definitely extend to organizations that are directly connected to the religious institution and whose mission it is to proselytize that religion's tenets.

However, as I understand it, this ruling covers organizations that have a more public function. Hospitals and schools are open to people of all faiths. When you are admitted to or hired by a Catholic hospital or schools, they don't ask if you are practicing member of that faith nor deny you admittance or employment if you are not.

Perhaps people at the very highest level, the CEO or members of the board of directors, might have to pass some religious litmus test. But the rank-and-file employees, the ones affected by this ruling, most certainly do not. If a religion is going to function in the public sphere it should have to abide by the same rules as everybody else.

In fact, the administration regulation is little more than a tweak of a 2000 ruling by the EEOC that required insurers and employers to cover contraceptive services for women and made failure to do so a form of illegal gender discrimination. While that ruling has not been tested all the way to the Supreme Court, it has been upheld by lower courts and remains the law of the land.

Truth be told, many of the loudest opponents of the ruling are against all requirements that health insurance policies cover contraceptives and would prefer that employers, the insurance industry and the market determine what is included. What is being fought over here is really a proxy war over broader health care policy in this country.

What can't be denied is that controlling whether and when to become pregnant is perhaps the most important health-care choice that confronts women. It is good public policy to allow access to contraceptives so that women can make their own decisions about this most personal issue.

Even though they aren't there yet, at some point in the future even the Catholic hierarchy will come to that conclusion and realize that behavior that is practiced by an overwhelming majority of adherents even though it is prohibited by church doctrine represents no threat to their core philosophy.

Joseph F. Baker, Parkville

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • On birth control, young Republicans get it

    On birth control, young Republicans get it

    Two-thirds of young Republicans believe that every woman should have access to affordable birth control, 65 percent believe that insurance companies should cover contraception without co-pays and 51 percent believe that the federal government should continue to fund contraceptive services for low-income...

  • Where OB-GYNs stand on over the counter birth control [Letter]

    Where OB-GYNs stand on over the counter birth control [Letter]

    A recent exchange within your opinion pages debated the benefit of over-the-counter access to oral contraceptives, with a letter to the editor ("Sun wrong on OTC birth control," Sept. 16) citing the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as being supportive of recent proposals from...

  • Pills don't prevent STDs

    Pills don't prevent STDs

    This letter is in response to Susan Reimer's column about the GOP's attitude about birth control ("On birth control, young Republicans get it," April 15). I think Ms. Reimer's opinion is very narrow-minded. While I agree that young people often have premarital sex with no desire to procreate, I...

  • Birth control bait-and-switch [Editorial]

    Birth control bait-and-switch [Editorial]

    Our view: GOP candidates are touting their newfound support for expanded access to contraceptives, but the ploy could backfire

  • 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 you think your employer...

  • 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 behind.

  • 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.