On Friday, October 6th, Health and Human Services officials announced a new rule: all businesses and organizations with religious or moral conflicts about birth control are no longer required to provide contraceptives in their health plans.Trump affirms this law, saying that it uphold's the country's value of religious freedom.
Previously, Obamacare mandated that birth control must be covered with zero cost, and currently about 50 million women have access to no-cost birth control. In addition, studies have shown that 9 out of 10 women of reproductive age will use birth control in their lifetime.
Thus, I believe that Trump's decision was poorly thought out. He did not consider that millions of women, and especially women in conservative states where there institutions tend to have more religious affiliations, will not only become subject to unwanted pregnancy, but also many women who use birth control for hormonal imbalances will suffer from his decision. As important as religious freedom is, it should not come at the cost of basic female health care, as this is essentially gender discrimination and thus violates both the 14th amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Furthermore, Trump's move seems hypocritical, as restricting access to contraceptives will inevitably lead to an increase in abortions, and his VP Mike Pence, among others in his cabinet, are vocal pro-life activists.
Should religious/morally opposed businesses and hospitals have the right to refuse providing contraceptives? How do you think this law will impact the nation as a whole? Do you believe Trump has the right to make decisions about women's bodies in the first place?
15 comments:
I agree with Diana in believing that Trump made a bad and unfair decision in repealing the mandate allowing women access to free contraceptives. Like Diana pointed out, many women use birth control. If these women need to start paying for their contraceptives, it opens a plethora of new, and huge, problems. For instance, teenage pregnancies rates, health care costs for women, and infant and maternal mortality rates are all likely to increase significantly. Corporations and health insurance companies are now also able to claim that contraceptives are against their moral or religious policies just so that they can charge more or pay less. This could create access gaps all over the country. Furthermore, while Trump claims that he is trying to protect religious freedom, I think he is overstepping his power and threatening women's health and choice. To start, Obamacare already had exemptions in place for religious organizations and family-owned corporations that could "demonstrate sincere religious beliefs". Now, Trump has elevated moral beliefs to the same level as religious beliefs, which I don't really think falls under "religious freedom." Additionally, many women use birth control for other things like controlling cramps or hormonal issues (like Diana said), and those who use birth control for just controlling for birth should have the choice to decide when they want to get pregnant. Trump's move against birth control threatens this.
Well first of all, I don't believe there should be any hospitals tied to any religious organization. I feel as if there will be a sense of bias of how patients are treated. I feel like there should not be a choice whether contraceptives should be required as it is the job of the hospitals to provide relief no matter the ideals. I think that the conservative half of America will rejoice, so good for them. Trump does bot habe the right to make decisions about women's bodies.
I do not believe religious affiliated organizations should deny women access to contraceptives because it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. While the first amendment does guarantee the freedom of religion it does not specifically justify denial of citizen rights on basis of religion. Governments should not created rules and regulations that favor one religion over the other. Most importantly, these religious motives ought not to be supported if it could be potentially harmful or in violation of the American democracy. Because the 14th amendment protects the women’s right to privacy and the 9th prevents states from violating rights that may be unstated by the constitution (see Roe v Wade), the United States ought not to restrict abortions. Women have the autonomy to make decisions for themselves and their body without the government impeding because they know their bodily functions best. It seems contradictory to prioritize the life of a fetus over the potential threats the mother could face as a result of not receiving an abortion. It baffles me to see that men are allowed to regulate our bodies when they do not undergo the same hardships and struggles women do. If one is pro life, they argue in favor of the life of the fetus, but fail to vouch for the life of the mother that could face health issues due to giving birth. Yes, the fetus has a beating heart, but it can not thrive autonomous from the body of the mother, and it is living, breathing, and feeding of the mother. Therefore, the mother is the source of life for the fetus, and thus the mother ought to be able to decide what happens to her body since she is the only person at risk. Furthermore, regulating abortion increases safety concerns for women who may face mental or physical risks as a side effect. In my opinion children that may be conceived of rape or sexual abuse ought to have undeniable access to an abortion regardless of what the situation may be. Women facing socio economic and financial hardships should have the right to seek an abortion because it would become a burden on their financial status as they would now have to cover for their prenatal health and the baby’s health once it is born, including hospital fees, all on their own if the father is not present or unwilling to help. This also relates to women facing substance abuse issues or women living in dangerous environments that could further harm the baby’s and the women’s life due to pregnancy. If women can not properly provide for the baby once it is born then abortion is justifiable. These are merely a few examples of the various hardships a women could potentially face due to pregnancy. Restriction on abortion may also lead to illegal methods of obtaining abortions, like using clothes hangers, further defecting and risking lives. According to the CDC, around 700 women a year die due to birth defects.
I believe that Trump allowing corporations to deny birth control to their workers is due to Trump's lack of respect and understanding for women. Trump has not demonstrated that he actually cares for the 1st amendment. As NFL players have been protesting, Trump has called them nasty names because they are exercising their 1st amendment right to free speech and protest. However, now he is acting like the 1st amendment rights are the most important aspect of civil liberties, because it is convenient. Birth control is a right, as it allows people to be safe and prevents other issues such as unwanted pregnancy, which would often cause an abortion or serious financial instability, both being unfortunate situations. If Trump really considered the dramatic long term effects of a loss of birth control for many women, he would realize that his close minded opinions are in fact causing the same problems that he claims to want to remove.
I agree with Josh's comment. While I recognize the multitude of benefits religious organizations provide the public, I also recognize religion (or a certain style of religious interpretation) is often used to justify violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as many comments preceding mine have stated. At a certain point, the basic civil rights of citizens must infringe on certain "religious" practices if those practices involve treating people differently because of factors outside of their control (being gay, being a woman and having the ability to give birth, etc.). Allowing this policy to continue will result in a disproportionate amount of women being denied access to basic health care than men, thus providing unequal amounts of protection to one demographic over another based on gender -- like Diana said, that directly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
I don't believe that religious institutions should take away mediation from people who need it, solely based on their beliefs. I recognize that they have the right to give or refuse service, and the ability to express themselves, but if expressing oneself hurts others, it is not a fair way to treat women. Trump has made a mistake, and alienated a large group of people- women. This is not constitutional, and should not be handled by people who it doesn't affect. Religious organizations are an important aspect of our culture, but people's health should be more important than other's beliefs.
To me, what's wrong is that a corporation can influence one's sex, and therefore private, life in such a huge way on the basis of belief in certain religious practices. I think that this is a huge step backwards in women's rights and it is truly unjust for women to have to deal with this invasion of their privacy, just for the sake of some system of values that they might not even believe in. Personally, I don't believe letting text from the Bible or any religious document restrict how one lives their life, and I think that this is definitely an example religious, especially Christian, groups trying to keep a grasp on American society when it has clearly been moving farther and farther apart over the last half-century and even more.
There is a perfect Supreme Court case for this situations that perhaps resolves the thinking of Trump and Pence. Burwell v Hobby Lobby is the case in which a store was affirmed by the Supreme Court to have the ability to select the methods of birth control they wish to give to their workers. I agree, it is indeed wrong for both the government and a corporation to influence one's sexual live. But it is blatantly hypocritical for us to ask the government and companies to stay out, while also asking them for subsidies on birth control. This is a selective bias that I think needs to be exposed.
Birth control is not a "need." Individuals are making a choice when they engage in sexual intercourse (unless in the case of rape, which I do actually agree with immediate contraceptives). There is an obvious inherent risk of pregnancy and potential harm, which is why each individual needs to consider for themselves what kind of protections they wish to use. To suggest that women are incapable of realizing this for themselves and being proactive about the steps they take to prevent it is demeaning. If an individual decides they want an insurance plan that covers the base of birth control, they can go about that by either negotiating with their employer or buying insurance for themselves. We have unions for this exact reason...
And more to the point, basic birth control isn't that expensive at all! A condom is around 30 cents, and has around a 99% effectiveness. An emergency day after pill is around $30 at target. So even if you had sex every day of your life, and taking the worse case on the 99% statistic, you'll end up spending around $199.50 annually.
On the hormonal balances statement, I have to agree. I think we need to separate hormone control form birth control. I believe that pressures from workers for companies to provide more benefits such as making this distinction can rectify this.
The utterly hypocritical nature of this frustrates me, It is inherently wrong that our president should have the right to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies. I also think that hospitals and pharmaceutical companies should not ever have any sort of religious backing or foundation. This would already cause biases in patient care, and if Trump would continue to expand religious "freedom" or "practice" in hospitals that do have religious backing like this, then who would be next in trumps micro agenda? Muslims? Jews? corporate influence and power so great should never have any sort of bias or even power to discriminate in this way, the bible never said anything about birth control anyway. Additionally, Trump's doing this is a serious regression in women's rights. Besides the hypocrisy in this is action by Trump, it is also quite ridiculous, because there would be an increase in abortions, for which his stance is a firm pro choice. What then, will he make abortions legal? what then, Personally I think, if he continues down this path, he will only continue to push women towards what he will have made out to be illegal activity which could theoretically include abortion or black market birth control for women, thus incriminating them, and pushing his sexist agenda forward. I have no idea if this is his plan but the way things have been going it seems an awful lot like this is what his thought process might be.
One of the issues I have with this move is that Trump is using religious freedom as a reason to sacrifice the rights of others in order to promote a moral belief. Moral beliefs should not take precedence over the Constitution itself, as the Constitution should be the law of the land. Ultimately, this is a question of not religious freedom but human rights.
I do not think birth control should have the option to be denied to women who want or need it. I think being on birth control should be their decision rather than a businesses. This could cause a lot of issues for women who rely on birth control. Although I understand that people's beliefs should be respected, when it comes to health care I do not think a religious business should decide whether or not someone else should have birth control.
Religious or morally opposed businesses and hospitals should have the right to refuse providing contraceptives, however, in my mind contraceptives does not include the birth control pill. This is because, as Diana said in her post, birth control pills are used for more than preventing pregnancy. According to youngwomenshealth.org birth control pills are used for irregular or heavy menstrual periods, menstrual cramps, acne, PMS, Primary Ovarian Insufficiency, endometriosis, and hormone replacement therapy. This will impact women all over the country because even people who are not religious or are not against birth control, may be employed by a religious or morally opposed business or hospital and therefore be unable to obtain birth control. I agree with Diana that Trump has not made the right decision as it is a woman’s choice if they want to use birth control, it is not up to their employer to decide what medication they can or cannot have covered. I agree that this is a double standard as I cannot even think of a medicine for men that would be under the restriction birth control is.
To start off, I think it's unfair that Trump holds this decision over woman. To start off with the basics, it's a woman's CHOICE if they want to take it or not. I understand that Trump is pro life, but like Diana said, it is very ironic that trump banned the free birth control (causing more unwanted pregnancies), yet is against abortion. Where is the sense in that? Birth control pills aren't KILLING the fetus, it is preventing the formation of a fetus. The birth control pill is preventing ovulation, therefore the fetus was NEVER formed. There is no killing being done with birth control because women aren't ovulating. Like Shweta said, there are many other factors that come to play when being on birth control. A woman knows if she is able to provide for a baby, either financially or physically, or mentally. Why bring a baby into the world just to suffer? I think Trump fails to realize the dangers of removing birth control. If a woman does not want a baby, she will find a way not to have it. Women choose birth control to be safe, because if they did not want the baby they would get rid of it in a harmful way. Now on another note, birth control is used for much more than preventing pregnancies, woman use it to regulate their periods, or to avoid acne, or many other reasons. There is no point as to why ANYONE should make choices for us.
I believe that religious and/or morally opposed businesses and hospitals do not have the right to refuse providing contraceptives due to their beliefs. I don’t think Trump has made the right decision because it should be the woman’s decision whether they want to be on birth control; businesses should have no say regarding the woman’s body, for it’s not up to them. The saying “Her body Her choice” is seen since it’s not the business’ choice whether a woman can be covered for birth control. It’s her body, so it should be her choice; women shouldn’t be restricted. This is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment because women’s rights are being deprived and they have a right to medication. Birth control pills are used for multiple purposes besides pregnancy prevention like acne, and menstrual cramps. This restricts women from their own comfort, whether it being to prevent pregnancy or for their physical health.
Post a Comment