Contraception compromise

In her April 6th response article, Audrey Pollnow debated my March 27th article with some legitimate moral issues regarding government-mandated birth-control healthcare reform. It is of the utmost importance to note that President Obama altered his initial mandate and made it so that church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities would not have to provide or pay for contraceptive coverage. Instead, the White House said, coverage for birth control could be offered to women directly by their employers’ insurance companies “with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.” The mandate as it stands now does not force any religiously affiliated institution to actively provide birth-control products. Audrey’s article is addressing what is virtually a non-issue.

Obama mentioned in his compromise that the plan would take Catholic institutions out of the discussion by taking away their burden to either pay the coverage of contraceptives or provide any recommendation to their employees for that coverage. Rather, it would be the responsibility of the insurance companies to pay for all birth control, and it would be their responsibility to arrange it. The argument made at the time of the compromise is that the insurers will be in favor of this arrangement since it is more expensive for them to pay for pregnancies than to pay for birth control. Churches that object to birth-control coverage are exempted. This compromise applies exclusively to Catholic institutions, like hospitals and nonprofits that employ and serve significant numbers of non-Catholics.

I agree that no citizen should be coerced into performing actions they believe to be wrong or morally reprehensible, especially if First-Amendment rights are at stake. Many non-Catholics had criticized the Obama mandate even if they did not oppose contraception. I welcome the reformed mandate in so far as it is less of an imposition on religious institutions but still grants increased access to contraception to those that want it.

Audrey’s article correctly asserts that the Obama mandate is morally contentious, in that it causes religious people to be more involved with the dissemination of health products that they may find ethically reprehensible. But, as with most items that are contentious, there is a second side to the moral coin that needs to be explored. Specifically, what of the nonreligious individuals that work in some capacity for a religious organization? There is conceivably a specific type of coverage, that of birth control, that they — the atheists and/or agnostics — are lacking and perhaps deserve.

The interests of the religious employer are surely important, and the government should not infringe on their beliefs. But there are also the interests of the hypothetical employee who could want a certain type of coverage.

Even in the “private Catholic food bank — funded exclusively by Catholics, with exclusively Catholic membership” — described by Pollnow, there is not a clear example of when Obama’s reformed mandate would be misguided. After all, 98 percent of women who identify as Catholic have used contraception according to a report done by the U.S.-based Guttmacher Institute. I understand that this statistic is overused, and perhaps exaggerated, but it certainly approximates reality.

Even if Obama had not altered his original mandate, this order would still be beneficial. The vast majority of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but according to the official White House factsheet, more than half of all women between the ages of 18 and 34 struggle to afford it. The benefit of having all institutions cover contraception may outweigh the costs, as government need not spend any capital. This program saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on more extreme health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System required of both religious and nonreligious employers in Hawaii. Covering contraception saved each employee $97 per year. Nonetheless, the moral considerations were taken into account by the Obama administration to make an increased number of people comfortable.

Morality in general is a tricky notion to talk about. It is not easy to understand morality in a universalizing sense. Different people have different belief structures that are contingent on many things — religion, geography, etc. The revised mandate allows for people with disparate moral inclinations to work in the same institution harmoniously. Religious employers are not providing birth control and nonreligious employees can receive their birth control at affordable rates. Nonreligious employers can provide birth control; religious employees do not have to take it.

Some observant Catholics have come out against even the reformed version of Obama’s mandate. Various Catholic parties that were adverse to the mandate have come around. I will not claim to understand the objection of those who view the current mandate as contrary to their morals, but, as I stated before, morality is a difficult thing to debate. I do believe, however, that the compromise is comfortable for most. No piece of legislation or executive order will have the entire support of the people.

Aaron Applbaum is a sophomore from Oakland, Calif. He can be reached at applbaum@princeton.edu.