BLOG: Women's Rights Under Attack

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to provide free preventive care, including contraception.

In the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), there is a provision requiring insurance companies to provide free preventive care, including contraceptives.  Opposition to this provision for free contraception grew this month because it was viewed as an infringement on the religious liberty of those employers whose beliefs included a dictate against birth control.  I viewed the opposition as an attempt to allow employers to impose their religious beliefs on their workers. 

President Obama insisted that this was never intended to interfere with anyone’s religious beliefs.  The intention was to insure that women would have access to free birth control no matter where they worked.  These religious based organizations (hospitals, schools) do not have to provide contraception to anyone.  They simply had to offer the free contraceptive coverage in their health insurance policies.  And so the President offered a compromise that allowed religious organizations to opt out of employee insurance coverage for contraceptives and instead would require insurance companies to offer it free to the organizations’ insured workers.  But still Republicans protested.  These legislators are supposed to be acting on behalf of all their constituents.  Since over 98% of women (including most Catholics) have relied on contraception at some time in their lives, we have to assume that most Americans are in favor of this provision. In fact, women are prescribed birth control pills for health issues other than birth control. 

Taking it a step further, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an amendment to the highway funding bill that would allow any employer, regardless of whether it is a religious entity, the right to refuse coverage of any health care service they find religiously or morally objectionable.  They want to give employers the power to impose their own religious beliefs on their employees, getting in between Americans and their doctors and taking medical decisions away from the people who should be making them.  Is this what Republicans mean by small government? 

Recent laws around the country have mandated that a woman have a vaginal ultrasound before having an abortion even though this was not required by her doctor.  Government shouldn’t tell you that you have to buy health insurance but they can tell you that you must have an invasive vaginal procedure.  This is not an attack on religious freedom but on women’s rights.  Is this what Republicans mean by small government? 

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

dontHate.myThoughts. June 21, 2012 at 07:07 AM
Girls are having the state and county and all you tax payers pay for there abortions by simply going down and applying for medical at the welfare office. Abortions are a $400-600 procedure. Some girls use abortions as a form.of birth th control and have nunerous abortions. That us taxpayers pay for. If they keep thw baby they may end up on welfare annd the county offers help and money ebt all that stuff.. So if birth control being free.. By all means.. Let the ladys take it if there trying to prevent pregnancy. Geeze. You all need to look at the big picture. People arnt gonna stop what there doing and taking advantage of the money that gets handed out. It makes more sence to give out birth control then expensive free abortions and ebt. Free grocery money . And cash aid. Makes sence to me when it comes down to people who take advantage of the county states and taxpayers help. Sorry about the spelling errors. My phone wont let me go back and correct it. Just my opinion. Something for all you people who like to argue your point and how much you know and went too college for. Think about it in that perspective.
Carl Petersen III June 28, 2012 at 07:55 PM
My Dad would have been really proud today! What will the argument be now from the Conservatives now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Obamacare is constitutional?
LHJ June 28, 2012 at 08:37 PM
It's the law, go with it.. I notice the decision was split down party lines. Our courts promote political ideology rather than interpret the law. Given that, we little people live with it. That's the way it goes.. either way..
Cindy Petersen June 28, 2012 at 08:39 PM
LHJ: the decision was not split down party lines. Justice Roberts is a conservative justice appointed by George Bush.
LHJ June 28, 2012 at 09:21 PM
It was along party lines. Because one doesn't follow, doesn't change the fact that it was split with one rogue.. Clearly, you are never happy. Regardless what is said, you will find something wrong with it.. It was along party lines, with one rogue. The law is the law, we will follow it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »