Woah There, Don't Call Me a Conservative Either

In his article for Forbes magazine, contributor Peter Farrera explains the controversy surrounding this whole birth control issue like this:

 "What is at issue in this election is whether the government has the power to force a religious institution to pay for contraceptives and even abortion inducing drugs for its employees, when the use of contraceptives and drugs is contrary to the institution’s religious beliefs. That issue has been raised by Obamacare, as HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has proposed a regulation under the authority of that law requiring employers to pay for health insurance providing free contraceptives for their employees."

I think at issue for me, is the fact that what happens between a woman and her doctor should stay there.  If her doctor prescribes birth control, then it should be no different than any other drug he or she would prescribe.  It should be treated the same as any other drug, and not be singled out, because in the absence of a dependable form of male birth control, doing so singles out women. 

I think it's a stretch, however, for him to state, "Moreover, this Obamacare policy is just a precedent to the next step of forcing everyone to pay for health insurance covering abortion...."    Why are "both sides" constantly throwing abortion in our faces?  Wouldn't abortion be an elected procedure, unless it were deemed necessary to preserve a woman's health? 

An abortion should forevermore, without question, be available to women who want or need one.  And women who can't afford one should absolutely be able to get assistance in paying for one (because too often the alternative is paying for a lifetime of food, shelter and medical care for an unwanted child, and we currently have no programs in place to help people get off welfare), as an available medical procedure between a woman and her doctor.  I don't think women or men should be required to segregate their medical issues, options or choices by whether or not they have anything to do with sex, for any reason, religious or otherwise.  If a religious institution provides insurance that covers doctors who prescribe birth control, then it's none of their damn business whether or not their employees are on birth control, anti-depressants, or any other covered drug. 

Why must everything be so black and white?  Liberal vs. conservative, welfare vs. being cut off completely, Christian men vs. "all" women.  Of course I understand that this isn't really the case, but liberals behave like they can swing the women's vote by saying conservatives are taking away abortion, and conservatives try to keep everyone in their corner by saying, "Watch out!  Pretty soon every woman will be entitled to a free abortion and she'll be doing it every other month because she'll be using it as birth control and you'll have to pay for it!"  Geez!  Can we just STOP already?

In the interest of fairness, here's the link to Farrera's article in Forbes, though I think it's still biased, as everything is, which only supports my point of "who's shoveling it?":

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/03/08/bringing-rationality-to-the-rush-limbaughcontraception-controversy/

Comments

In order to comment on BlogHer.com, you'll need to be logged in. You'll be given the option to log in or create an account when you publish your comment. If you do not log in or create an account, your comment will not be displayed.