Out of Habit, Out of Luck

When I was in college, my first visit to a gynecologist entailed evaluating why my periods were so painful and heavy. The family didn't really know then about Von Willebrand's disease. However, the doctor was very kind and gentle and appreciated the fact that I was a 19 year old virgin as well as a woman in need of answers. It was one of the most open conversations about reproductive health I had ever had. The end result was a diagnosis of endometriosis. The most common treatment for this: birth control pills.

Here to solve your female needs.

I knew how hormone therapy worked. I looked into the pamphlets the doctor gave me and I did some investigating. This was in the early days of the internet folks--it was more books and leaflets and less "OK Google". I remember talking with my mom about it and explaining that I wasn't entirely comfortable with a prescription of birth control pills just yet. Mom being mom of course shared my diagnosis and treatment options with the family--the extended family that is. She then returned to me with what she felt would be reassuring words. My grandmother assumed that my discomfort with birth control was because of us being Catholic and the Catholic church being steadfast in its opposition to birth control. My grandmother via my mother wanted to reassure me that since it was  medically prescribed, it was ok to take the Pill. My eyebrows knit in confusion. It puzzled me why some old guys in Rome would have entered into my decision at all. I knew the Church's stance and even then I didn't give a ripdiddly. I told my mom bluntly that the Church's view wasn't why I was uncertain; it was the effect the hormones can have on the body. I already had acne and I had always struggled with my weight. I knew that these were common side effects of many versions of the Pill as well as other effects that impacted a woman's mood. I wanted to talk with my doctor--not my grandmother or my priest--about finding the right Pill for my body.

Um, what?

My face when my mom told me that taking birth control wouldn't be a sin, so I shouldn't worry.

I raise the issue because birth control is on the forefront again as the Supreme Court sits ready to hand down a decision on whether or not non-profits or church-run organizations can exempt themselves from the Affordable Care Act's mandate to provide reproductive health care including birth control for its female employees. A group of nuns in the lawsuit feels that even signing the form opting out of providing reproductive care to their female employees is still an undue burden because by signing it, they are somehow complicit in providing what they believe to be abortion. Their argument is so wrong, misguided, and selfish that the irony of their "Let them serve" signs at the protest rallies is absurd.

 However, you must sign away your own beliefs and allow us complete control over you. It's ok, we're religious, which means we know better than you or your doctor.

Part of the argument that is wrong involves the simple fact that birth control, even the morning after pill, are not abortificants. In order to argue before the Supreme Court, I would think everyone would want to have facts, not twisted falsehoods to suit their individual viewpoints. Science is quite clear here: the pill prevents fertilization. If the sperm can't get in the egg, there is not conception. It's fact, so don't argue that point. It's simply wrong.

Umm, gee. I really thought that one would work.

Arguing to be exempt from providing this health care also falls into the category of misguided because the nuns and others like them believe that somehow they are violating their conscience by filing a form. First of all, as Catholics, they have access to confession, which absolves them. Ta-da! Like magic it is! You feel a burden on your conscience? Well lucky you. You can go to the confessional and unburden yourself to a priest. Viola. You can go back to serving as you see fit.

I feel so guilty for helping that woman and treating her like a human being. How will God ever forgive me for that?

Not only that, but they want to be exempt from a law because of their religious views when the women who work for them might not also believe the same way. That right there is imposing their religion on other people-PERIOD. One thing I was always taught in school was that the exercise of your rights ends where another person's rights begin much like the extension of fist thrown at another person. You make contact with that other person, you've moved from your right to their right. Furthermore, if we follow this line of thinking, then a Seventh Day Adventist could deny a person a right to coverage for things like blood transfusions or platelets. Really? I need an operation and because I have bleeding disorder that might require blood products, my hypothetical employer could try and deny me coverage for transfusions because of their religious belief? This is a slippery slope argument, but it's not altogether unrealistic. A person's religious beliefs cannot withhold basic health care from another person. If Catholics somehow maneuver this argument and sway the justices, then other religions can also pursue this course of thought leading to denial of all kinds of coverage, which defeats the purpose of healthcare for everyone. That is of course, unless they happen to be decent human beings who recognize their religious viewpoints should not determine the course of another person's life choices just because they happen to be an employee and female.

Wee! Let's all ride the slippery slope together.

Here's a silly notion: some religious believers do not eat some types of meat nor drink certain types of caffeinated beverages. yet, they do pay their taxes. A portion of those taxes goes to provide things like food stamps that impoverished Americans may spend on things that violate the food and drink restrictions of the believers in question. However, these believers do not seek to be exempt or in some way direct their taxes away from the social services. If they did, it would be a ridiculous madhouse of red tape that would be completely unmanageable. The same holds true here. Those little sisters mentioned in the case need to get over themselves and realize that their deeply held beliefs are theirs alone. By trying to exempt out completely, they are attempting to execute a privilege based on their Christianity and Catholicism, not mercy, compassion, or service to others.

Maybe if I look at it from this angle it won't look like I'm using religion to avoid treating a woman like a person.

On that same line of thinking, this lawsuit is simply selfish. No one wants to say that about individuals who have devoted themselves to their faith and service to others, but their position is incredibly selfish and lacks empathy. The sisters want others to believe that their attack of conscience in this matters more than the health care of the women seeking medical care. Those women who seek birth control may indeed need it to solve another medical problem like I did. An ovarian cyst is incredibly painful. When one ruptures, holy crap the intense pain is blinding. The goal of birth control in these cases is to reduce the suffering of the woman. By denying that treatment, the good sisters and their supporters again show their ignorance of medicine if they think painkillers alone manage the job. They want to actually keep the women in pain and suffering to assuage their guilt over violating the Vatican's stance on birth control. Incredibly selfish of them.

...to disregard capitalization rules and another person's pain.

Furthermore, why a woman might need the pills is none of the nuns' business. That is a discussion for the woman and her doctor. When I first got my prescription of birth control pills, I recall that my insurance company didn't want to pay because it was somehow considered elective medicine. I had to have the doctor send a report to the insurance company stating that I needed the hormone therapy to treat endometriosis. I recall thinking that was a ridiculous hoop to jump through and wondering if men ever had to face such a requirement in order to obtain medicine.

Hi! My dangly bits mean I get to call the shots.

Additionally, for some women, getting pregnant, even by their spouse in a marriage as preferred by the Catholics in question, could be a harrowing ordeal. Women could actually die if they get pregnant. Getting pregnant might complicate other diseases or conditions that the woman may be enduring. By interjecting their religious views into this conversation, the nuns and their supporters are executing a privilege that should not exist because it asserts that their religious belief supercedes the medical needs of another person. The women needing birth control apparently simply do not count as people in this debate. Their bodies are not theirs to manage. Their bodies exist simply to carry babies as God the Father deems fit. As women they clearly deserve whatever cursed suffering their lady parts have in store for them. That nasty apple wrought so much sin for which they must atone.Therefore, those nuns and others like them have a right to object to providing birth control.That's blatantly backward and selfish thinking in my book. It's reasoning that fails to see women as individuals who have rights that are just as important and deeply held as the nuns' faith.

We've allowed our religion to oppress us for so long, we know you'll enjoy it, too. 

I call bullshit on this case. I call bigoted, privileged, and hypocritical bullshit on this case before the Supreme Court. I know that not all nuns are agents of oppression, not all Catholics believe birth control is evil, and that not all Christians believe the Court should allow religious exemptions. In this case as it stands though, I call bullshit on religious exemption claim because it is nothing more than using faith as a tool to harm another person. That's an abuse of religious power I cannot abide.