There has been a lot of discussion lately concerning the White House policy requiring religious organizations to supply birth control to employees, even if this requirement violates that religious organization’s basic doctrine. I have remained silent on this issue, although it is an issue that is very near to my heart. I have seen and heard many of my friends make comments regarding the unsophisticated stance of those religious leaders. I have heard the jokes that a bunch of middle age white men are making decisions regarding a woman’s body. At the risk of sounding like one more neanderthal middle-aged white man, may I be given an opportunity to express my opinions on this subject? You do not have to agree with me, but I ask that you listen to me.
First, I think we must be very clear that the White House strategically chose when and how to announce the mandate to religious organizations. While they claim that they were surprised by the reaction of religious leaders, I find those statement duplicitious. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Helath and Human Services, made the initial announcement on January 20, 2012. That is the anniversary date of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that leglaized abortion in this country. It is highly suspect to suggest that the announcement was made innocently on that date. The Obama administration has used that date more than once to announce decisions that upset the pro-life proponents in this country.
Second, let me state that in my mind, this is not a Democrat versus Republican, or a liberal versus conservative issue. By choice, I do not speak publically about political issues. But, this is not a political issue. This is an issue in which the Federal Government is legislating people to perform in ways that directly violate their conscious and religious sensibilities. This is an issue regarding my core beliefs regarding the sanctity of life in all its forms. I would find this decision objectionable no matter who was in office. Our government is asking people to violate core beliefs and religious convictions. The government should in no way be allowed to force a person to violate basic beliefs. Don’t we object when the North Korean government forces its citizenry to violate their core beliefs?
Third, the issue is not about birth control. While many religious leaders who are objecting to the law are opposed to all forms of birth control, that is not the case of all Christians. There are many Christians who do object to all forms of birth control. As a whole, all Christians do not find contraception to be wrong. The issue, is however, about some forms of birth control, and the facts regarding their use as an abortifacient (which is any method used to terminate a pregnancy after conception). While some may argue that woman should have access to birth control, the fact is that some of those forms of birth control the government would ask religious organizations to provide, include abortifacients. Yes, the Morning After Pill (RU 486) would be one of the forms of birth control covered under the policy. While the media has labelled this as a simple argument about birth control, it is much more than that. We are not debating who is for or against birth control. We are not debating whether birth control is right or wrong. The issue is about certain forms of birth control that are abortifacients.
Fourth, I am not trying to legislate a woman’s sexuality or sexual practice. I think Christians are quickly depicted as anti-sex and prude. While I may not agree with all of your choices, include sexual choices, this is not an issue about legislating sexual practices.
Fifth, many forms of birth control, including “the Pill” and others can be abortifacient. The scientific evidence is inconclusive in this area. While it is likely that most forms of birth control prevent conception, it cannot be proven scientifically that the Pill and other birth control methods prevent conception every time. One of the other purposes of these birth control pills is to thin the lining in the uteran wall so that if an egg is fertilized, it will not be able to implant in the uteran wall. That means, that one can conceive, but because of the birth control method, be unable to sustain that pregnancy. This is what is at issue in this debate.
Let me tell you what I believe fundamentally, in the core of my soul. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. I believe this because of my religious beliefs and I believe it to be true at every level of my being. So, I find it unconscionable that a life may be formed and then prevented from maturing because it cannot grow in the mother’s womb. It is a life, and taking away the environment for that life to survive is murder. It is, in my conscious, no different than the killing fields Cambodia, the mass exterminations of people in Nazi Germany, the Cultural Revolution of Maoist China, or the genocide in Rwanda. I believe that, at a fundemantal level, we all know that life begins at conception. That is why we celebrate the announcement of a pregnancy, looking forward to the baby to be born. That is why nobody ever tells someone grieving a miscarriage that they should not be emotional because they were carrying a mass of tissues rather than a life. That is why people have been convicted of double murder for killing a pregnant woman. But, my government is now telling me that I must provide something that violates my beliefs and conscious at the most base level. How is that right? How is that admirable? Most religious organizations and leaders in this country will share a similar view and stance on conception and abortion. That is why they have objected so vehemently to this government mandate.
But, you say, that woman working for a religious orgnaization does have a right to birth control. I can truly understand that position and belief. And I do know that there are some women who receive medical benefits from birth control, including a elimination of ovarian cysts, etc. In fact, some dear women in my life have been prescribed the Pill in their early teens to prevent medical complications. So, shouldn’t they have access to those medical benefits? Certainly. But why does it have to be provided through a religious organization? Couldn’t the federal government provide a way for drug manufacturers to provide these medically necessary prescriptions at low cost, or no cost, to women who need them? If people can receive blood pressure medicine at next to no cost, couldn’t the same be provided to women without those birth control pills being provided through the religious organization?
The government is mandating that religious leaders like me and many of my comrades do something that is morally objectionable to us. Why is that acceptable? The government does not mandate that someone who objects to the public education system place their children in that same system. The government does not require a pacifist to put on army fatigues. The government does not mandate that one opposed to hunting buy deer tags for a hunter.
This is a personal issue for me. My wife and I have used various methods of birth control, including the Pill. However, when we read and were told by her OBGYN that we could not be completely confident that the pill prevented conception, we chose other forms of birth control based on our conscious. God forgive us if our uninformed choices destroyed a life. Ultimately, when we realized the toll taken on my wife’s body during her two pregnancies, we knew that we needed an effective form of birth control because I was unwilling to have my wife go through the pain she experienced with pregnancy. So we chose for me to have a vasectomy. I know that some Christians would find our decision objectionable, stating that we should not prevent the possibility of conception. It was a decision that best met with our consciences. If for some reason, God blesses us with another conception, then we will go through the process again. But, I could not morally face the possibility that conception occurred and that our child was lost through a method of birth control.
I realize that I do not speak for all Christians. Also understand that all Christian voices in this debate do not speak for me. Rush Limbaugh does not speak for me, nor does any other radio personality (conservative of liberal). Hear my voice, and please do not label me as a religious fanatic, or misogynist, or bigot, or puritan, or any other moniker you might be tempted to place on me. This is a serious issue that requires serious thought and discussion. I am disappointed that we are so quick to label someone and thus dispel their argument. I do not condemn those who use birth control. I do not hate those who have had abortions. I am, however, troubled that those who have beliefs similar to mine are ridiculed and discounted as backward and a threat to national welfare. Please hear me, and respect what I feel is a violation of my core beliefs and morality.