The federal government does not have the power to force religious organizations to pay for things that an organization thinks is wrong,” stated Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL).

Jehovah’s Witnesses believe the Bible forbids blood transfusions. Christian Scientists assert that vaccinations violate their religious tenets. Scientologists hold the belief that psychiatry is a  awed practice. Denying an individual the  nancial ability to obtain medical treatment, simply because it offends your religious beliefs, is a very slippery slope.

The ongoing controversy over coverage of contraceptives by insurance has prompted the Catholic Church to cry repression; the Church believes that the government’s requirement for insurers to cover contraception at 100% is unconstitutional. Freedom of religion is de ned in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The amendment states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  is law does not violate the Church’s First Amendment right to teach its view of contraception as sinful. It also protects individuals’ First Amendment right to believe as they wish to believe and to use (or not use) contraception.

The law already provides religious exemptions to this policy to churches and other houses of worship. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church is heading a movement to gain exemptions for any other company run by a religious organization that opposes contraceptives. Excluding birth control coverage means that women who work for Catholic-run schools, soup kitchens, and hospitals have to pay the entire cost of contraceptive prescriptions out-of-pocket.  is would apply to Catholic and non-Catholic women alike. It also would apply to women who use hormonal birth control for other therapeutic uses, such as regulating a heavy menstrual cycle, dermatological concerns, or polycystic ovarian disease. So, if a woman employed at a Catholic university needed a prescription for hormonal contraceptives to treat one of these conditions, she could still be denied coverage and have to pay the entire cost herself.

The compromise offered up by President Obama has been to pass the buck and make the insurance company eat the cost of the contraceptives, instead of the organization o ering the insurance having to foot the bill.  is very well may be beneficial to the insurance providers in the long run, as birth control costs much less than payment for the medical costs of an unintended pregnancy. Many people have been happy with this compromise, because it does not require the church to pay directly for contraceptives. However, some are still upset, claiming that even indirectly paying for birth control is against the tenets of their religion. One point that these naysayers are missing is that no matter how the scenario plays out, they will be paying indirectly for birth control in some way. Whether the money the employers pay as wages is used for contraceptives or the insurance company is covering another organization’s workers and providing them with birth control, the transfer of funds is going to end up paying the costs indirectly.

Apart from the question of who is paying for birth control, it is imperative that it is accessible and a ordable for those who do wish to use it. One thing that is especially disconcerting about the Catholic Church’s rejection of contraceptives is that an overwhelming percentage of the U.S. population (including Catholics) has used birth control. According to the Guttmacher Institute, of all women in this country who have had sex, 99% have used artificial means of birth control.The percentage of sexually active Catholic women who have used contraceptive methods condemned by their own church is 98%. If this is the case, why is the Catholic Church  ghting so hard to condemn use of contraceptives? It is very clear that their use is not only normative, but arguably necessary in today’s world.

Family planning has allowed for a huge amount of positive change in our society. Women are now more able to work outside the home, support their families, and plan for a time that is right in their careers to have children. Families are also better equipped to space out children in an optimal way to give each the most love and support they need. Also, those couples that do not wish to conceive any or any more children are more able to enjoy a vibrant sex life and still do what is best for their family. Essentially, contraceptives give individuals, couples, and families options—options that are incredibly empowering and important.Beliefs held by a very small minority should not have a detrimental impact on the accessibility and a ordability of contraceptives for others. Freedom of religion—the freedom to believe and practice one’s faith as one sees fit—is an individual’s right and must be protected. What is at stake is not the Church’s religious freedom, it’s ours.