Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown Law student, testified before Congress last week backing President Obama's regulations mandating health insurance covered contraception, saying contraception is generally essential. This story gained national buzz when conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh compared the situation to taxpayers paying Ms. Fluke to have sex. The fury over Limbaugh's uncivilized remarks is not as compelling to me as the issue at hand - that is, the correct separation of church and state and its application to federally mandated health coverage regulations.
Seven states filed to block the mandate as of last week, including Michigan (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/) . Is this issue a violation of our right to separate church and state? Republican GOP candidates Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have gone on record saying Obama's funding of birth control under Medicaid or employer subsidies is radical government overreach. Agree or disagree?
I would like to talk about the issue of contraception covered by health insurance itself instead of Limbaugh's comments. While there are many aspects of Obamacare that I do not necessarily agree with, I believe that insurance covered contraception is a good thing. I simply do not believe that free access to contraceptives will encourage more people to engage in sexual activity. I believe that covered contraceptives will have the effect of ensuring that those that do engage in sexual activity will have the resources to do so in a safe manner. Contraceptives are reasonably expensive in the U.S. and I do not think that people should avoid using them simply because they are too expensive.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with religious opposition to this plan. People that identify with a religion that does not agree with use of contraceptives or premarital sex should not have the final say in an issue that effects such a large percentage of the population. Contraceptives should be available to everyone that chooses to use them.
While this issue may go against some of my fundamental beliefs in terms of government involvement, I see a an opportunity to give more people access to a needed a resource.
I agree with Ryan completely
DeleteI agree with Ryan on many of his points. I don't believe that greater access to contraceptives will have the effect of encouraging sexual activities. I think that these types of things will happen regardless, and many statistics show that it happens plenty enough amongst teens. It will make it a safer and more responsible environment. I don't think that people who are religiously biased should be able to make such an impact upon this issue that they can destroy the hope of the majority who are looking for assistance in being responsible. Not only that but easier access to contraceptives could potentially solve many economic and social issues that plague the US today.
ReplyDeleteI am currious to see the data of teenage pregnancy if contraception was insured by the Obamacare. If it is effective, I support the idea because this would play a fragmental role in decreasing poverty.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting article. I agree with Fluke. People are not going to stop having sex and, quite honestly, I keep seeing in the news that kids are starting to do it at younger and younger ages. It's getting out of control, but I don't know what can be done to stop. So, at the very least, contraceptives should be made readily available to help prevent a much bigger problem.
ReplyDelete