Government Shutdown Brings Birth Control Controversy

In the midst of a battle over a possible government shutdown, somehow, one entirely unrelated issue has been pulled into the political fray: birth control.

Why are we not surprised?

On Sunday, the House of Representatives passed a spending bill that included new, unexpected provisions.  The latest proposed spending solution now includes a so-called “conscience clause,” a provision that would allow employers and insurers to refuse to cover health services that they object to on moral or religious grounds.  Following the lead of a bill by renowned anti-choice extremist Tennessee Representative Diane Black, House lawmakers are seeking to allow companies to opt out of the law that requires them to offer insurance plans covering contraception.

While the current statue ensures that many women have access to basic preventative healthcare that they might not otherwise be able to afford, some companies have brought forth religious objections.  Several lawsuits are pending throughout the nation, though it looks unlikely that the courts will find the religious objection convincing in the case of for-profit companies.

The additional measure in the short-term spending solution also expands protection for entities that refuse to provide abortion services.  Although the President has previously signed an executive order upholding the administration’s adherence to the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits any federal funding of abortion or abortion coverage, some extreme lawmakers have continued to push on the issue.

Many people are upset and dismayed by the House’s added conscience clause.  Not only does the provision represent an extremist view that denies women the most basic healthcare coverage, but it also illustrates the far right’s obsession with social issues even as the nation braces for a government shutdown and serious economic consequences.     

2 Comments on “Government Shutdown Brings Birth Control Controversy”

  1. vdavidiuk says:

    It’s very sad that you’ve arrived at the conclusion that any action to protect individual liberties with regard to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is necessarily an attack on a woman’s right to choose. The two can go hand in hand without resorting to conflict. I should not be forced to subsidize an abortion, nor should I be forced to embrace the view that abortion is not a moral evil.

  2. GOP Choice says:

    Vdavidiuk: As Republicans we hold individual liberty in the highest esteem. This recent attempt to limit women’s access to preventive healthcare however, has little to do with anyone’s freedom of religion and is another example of ideological extremists using personal social issues as a partisan football.

    Additionally, the proposed legislation mentioned has nothing to do with abortion coverage- which is already restricted from federal funding due to the 1976 Hyde Amendment. No one is being asked to personally support or even fund another’s abortion. In fact, this legislation would limit access to preventive health care (contraceptives) that have proven to decrease the need for and rate of abortions nationwide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s