Hey, It Is the Twenty-First Century

Republicans have been hollering that religious freedom will supposedly be violated if Catholic hospitals and schools are compelled by law to provide contraceptive coverage in health insurance plans for their employees. Despite the thunderous noise coming from the right-wing, Democrats in Congress don’t have to cower, although some have already begun deserting the White House on the issue. First of all, recent polling shows that majorities, including Catholics, favor the provision of birth control in their health plans. It’s no accident that with the jobs outlook beginning to improve nationally and President Obama’s job approval numbers also improving, Republicans have begun hammering on the social issues. Happy to see David Remnick make the same point in a New Yorker comment he published today.

Notice also that the right-wing is trying to make it not about birth control but abortion, as they elide the two, or try to, and the media fails to make the necessary distinctions. This is also seen in the many manufactured controversies over Planned Parenthood, like last April when Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-AZ) falsely claimed that abortion comprises 90% of what the  organization does. When called on his lie, his spokesperson blandly said, “his remark was not intended to be a factual statement”. Then why make it, except to be irresponsibly tendentious?

The White House did the correct thing on January 20 when they announced this new policy. It would be discriminatory to the many women employed by those religiously affiliated hospitals and social service agencies if they are able to refuse to cover birth control for their female employees, while other women have it provided by different employers. And now, Sen. Marco Rubio (R.-FL) is trying to wipe out the right altogether by introducing a bill that would allow any employer to refuse to provide contraceptive coverage just by claiming a religious conscience clause. I don’t believe this will pass, but it’s a frightening example of how rights long regarded as assured can be lost.

I recognize that progress in human history isn’t inevitable, but we are living in the 21st century–oral contraceptives have been widely able since the 1970s, and we shouldn’t be going backwards. Yet you wouldn’t know it judging by how willing (mostly male) politicians are to take medical advances away from women that have been available for decades. As Irin Carmon wrote in Salon this week,

“Why are we still arguing about contraception in 2012?  The Catholic bishops are free to make as many incendiary comments as they want, and they have, but that doesn’t mean that pundits should assume there’s a constituency beyond a bunch of celibate men and likely Republican voters that is actually going to be swayed by this. New polling on the topic shows, for example, that ‘a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters … favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.’”

Feb. 10 Update: I think the White House’s accommodation on this issue–announced a few hours ago–is smart. Though the right-wing opposition to contraception won’t be quelled, it should accomplish the goal of all American women having equal access to contraceptives, with insurers absorbing the cost rather than employers, if the latter claim a religious objection to providing them. Although the health insurance lobby will object, insurers should accept this because it’s preventative care, always less expensive than the alternative, such as the cost of a pregnancy or an abortion. Politically, this will force the many right-wing politicians who’ve been raising a flurry about the administration’s policy to show their true colors–whether their objection is really one founded on religious freedom, as they’ve claimed, or simply stems from the regressive urge to block women’s access to reproductive choice. 

[an earlier version of this post was published on my Facebook page earlier today]