Birth Control: Red vs Blue vs You

Birth Control: Red vs Blue vs You

President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has been no stranger to controversy.
Recently that controversy has been heightened yet again, when President Obama added an “accommodation” which would require religious institutions that work for the government to supply their students and employees with free contraception, such as condoms and birth control.
The spectrum of reactions has been wide; it incensed Rush Limbaugh to the point he called a Georgetown student in favor of this clause a “slut.”  He believed her request to have birth control covered meant tax payers were “paying her to have sex”. Limbaugh apologized; as well he should, though one does question his sincerity. Truthfully, birth control is taken for a wide variety of medical issues such as acne and menstruation cramps.
Conservatives call the accommodation a “war on religion”, believing it’s another example of government expansion upon individual beliefs.
Liberals on the other hand are touting the accommodation as a “victory for women’s rights.” They see an opportunity for women to receive free birth control no matter where they attend school, be it public or private.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. This is a fight our nation doesn’t need to have right now: a war over common sense.
This isn’t a war on religion; it does not directly involve the religious institution itself. It only involves the insurance companies affiliated with private religious institutions. The language of the law is a bit tricky, but for all practical purposes, it isn’t a government abridgement of religious rights.
However, neither is it a victory for women’s rights. Birth control may not be free, but it is already readily available, not to mention affordable. This accommodation really just is an excuse for people to expect more from their government, rather than taking any initiative themselves.
Birth control is a relatively serious issue, but this discussion may lead to further government mandates on trivial topics. The accommodation makes the government appear generous, especially in an election year. But many feel the more government gives; the more they feel welcome to take away.
Private school women, is it really that hard to get a prescription from a doctor for birth control?  If affordability is the concern, then why not just go to a local branch of Planned Parenthood to get contraception? Yes, it requires going out of your way to get contraception, but we can’t expect the government to deliver everything to our doorsteps wrapped with a pretty pink bow.
The President would be wise to avoid opening up this can of worms when the Affordable Care Act hasn’t yet been deemed constitutional. It’s best to take out the accommodation entirely. Religious zealots will lose the feeling that their religion is under attack, while women can still get birth control.
Nobody wins, but no one loses either.
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has been no stranger to controversy.
Recently that controversy has been heightened yet again, when President Obama added an “accommodation” which would require religious institutions that work for the government to supply their students and employees with free contraception, such as condoms and birth control.
The spectrum of reactions has been wide; it incensed Rush Limbaugh to the point he called a Georgetown student in favor of this clause a “slut.”  He believed her request to have birth control covered meant tax payers were “paying her to have sex”. Limbaugh apologized; as well he should, though one does question his sincerity. Truthfully, birth control is taken for a wide variety of medical issues such as acne and menstruation cramps.
Conservatives call the accommodation a “war on religion”, believing it’s another example of government expansion upon individual beliefs.
Liberals on the other hand are touting the accommodation as a “victory for women’s rights.” They see an opportunity for women to receive free birth control no matter where they attend school, be it public or private.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter who’s right or wrong. This is a fight our nation doesn’t need to have right now: a war over common sense.
This isn’t a war on religion; it does not directly involve the religious institution itself. It only involves the insurance companies affiliated with private religious institutions. The language of the law is a bit tricky, but for all practical purposes, it isn’t a government abridgement of religious rights.
However, neither is it a victory for women’s rights. Birth control may not be free, but it is already readily available, not to mention affordable. This accommodation really just is an excuse for people to expect more from their government, rather than taking any initiative themselves.
Birth control is a relatively serious issue, but this discussion may lead to further government mandates on trivial topics. The accommodation makes the government appear generous, especially in an election year. But many feel the more government gives; the more they feel welcome to take away.
Private school women, is it really that hard to get a prescription from a doctor for birth control?  If affordability is the concern, then why not just go to a local branch of Planned Parenthood to get contraception? Yes, it requires going out of your way to get contraception, but we can’t expect the government to deliver everything to our doorsteps wrapped with a pretty pink bow.
The President would be wise to avoid opening up this can of worms when the Affordable Care Act hasn’t yet been deemed constitutional. It’s best to take out the accommodation entirely. Religious zealots will lose the feeling that their religion is under attack, while women can still get birth control.
Nobody wins, but no one loses either.

SIMILAR ARTICLES

Dakota Roberts">

Dakota Roberts">

David R. Barrera">