A brewing battle over whether the government is obligated to provide American women with free birth control under ‘Obamacare’ new health reforms is underway. But what’s really at stake?
Newser: The senator who wrote the women’s health amendment, Barbara Mikulski, tells the AP that its clear intent was to include contraception; and one expert cites “clear and incontrovertible evidence that family planning saves lives and improves health.”
Conservative panelists such as John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, are expected to take a ‘moral’ stance and argue that contraception is not health care, “but a lifestyle choice” citing “other ways to avoid having children.”
It’s not hard to get what they mean, even though Christine O’Donnell – who once said she’d ‘stop the whole country from having sex’ – has yet to weigh in.
But is this really realistic (no matter how we define it) considering that, as Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, said “We can look at other countries where birth control is available for no cost, and what we see are lower pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy.”
Wouldn’t it be more understandable, if not more useful, (no matter one’s political disposition) to raise ethical or political questions rather resort to opposing the reforms for dogged moral reasons which, at best, are always relative and adhered out of habit rather than as a result of critical thinking?