Religion should not trump bodily health and well-being.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

From Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution 

Recently, an amendment to a Senate transportation bill was voted—by an uncomfortably narrow margin—to be tabled.  This amendment, sponsored by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), would have allowed any employer to deny health insurance coverage for any procedure or medication they object to for religious or moral reasons.  Again, this amendment has been tabled (killed, effectively), but Blunt swears he won’t give up on the idea. 

There’s also a Senate bill sponsored by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) that would allow any employer to deny insurance coverage specifically and only for contraception.  This bill is in committee; it’s still “alive.”  I don’t think it’s just me—both of these proposals definitely sound like a law respecting an establishment of religion.  The First Amendment is about not only preventing the oppression of religion but also preventing oppression by religion.

Thus, it’s frightening that our country is even having this conversation.  Religious beliefs should not trump someone’s bodily health and well-being, should not prevent someone from getting the care they need, should not threaten someone’s life.  If Rubio and his cosponsors succeed, or if Blunt tries again, all of these things will happen.

Furthermore, their platform is just completely wrong.  One person’s choices and/or prescriptions for their personal health and well-being do not infringe on anyone else’s religious beliefs or morals.  If you have religious beliefs regarding health, medication, and medical procedures, you may certainly apply them to yourself, and more power to you.  But just as “your rights end where another person’s begin,” so do your religious beliefs end where another person begins.  You may not like what another person is doing, but their personal choices for their personal health and life do not affect your beliefs. 

If you’re an employer who provides insurance, that still holds true.  You are under obligation—social, governmental, and moral—to provide health insurance to your employees.  As with the salaries you pay your employees, you don’t get to choose how this money is spent.  This is a personal decision between your employee and her/his doctor.

Would it be right if an employer who was a Jehovah’s Witness refused to cover blood transfusions?  No.   Would it be right if an employer who was a Christian Scientist refused to cover…well, everything?  No.  Would it be right if an employer refused to cover contraception because of his/her religious or moral beliefs?  No.    

This is an attempt to stop people from getting the treatment they need.  I’m sure Blunt, Rubio, et al. are well aware that if an expensive medication or procedure isn’t covered by someone’s insurance, that person won’t be able to afford it and could get very sick or die.  It’s outrageous that they respect the rights of their workers so little that they would let them sicken and die over their religious beliefs. 

Now I’d like to address the more specific anti-contraception bill:  the current debate over not just contraception but also abortion, forced ultrasounds before abortions, the banning of prenatal testing, and the criminalization of miscarriages shows that there is an unfortunately large (or just very loud) segment of the population that believes women to be little more than baby factories.  They have shown that they believe women have less value than the eggs, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses they carry or could potentially carry inside of them. 

I’d think they’d embrace contraception as a means to prevent more abortions, but instead it seems they’re simply trying to force women to live according to their beliefs and completely refrain from non-procreative sex, especially if it’s premarital. 

(An aside: it’s absurd to try to force such values on this society, and they will ultimately fail.  However, I’d like to see them admit defeat on that front sooner rather than later.  Look at our books, movies, television, music.  Look at your family and friends and neighbors, classmates and coworkers.  It’s easy to see that “no premarital sex” is not a value held dear by the majority of our country.  So, even putting aside the innate wrongness of forcing your beliefs on other people, it’s [hopefully] a losing battle to even try in this case.)

I say that they’re trying to force women, not all people in general, to refrain from non-procreative premarital partly for this reason:  not once in all this debate have I heard mention of vasectomies.  This procedure achieves the element of birth control pills that the religious despise:  the prevention of pregnancy, and therefore the promotion of non-procreative, consequence-free sex.  Contraception is extremely important in treating a wide range of health problems in women, in addition to preventing pregnancy; so, since vasectomies really only prevent pregnancy, you’d think they’d be an even bigger target for the religious conservatives.  But as I said, I haven’t heard even one mention of them.

This is indicative of a broader cultural problem in America:  the only people who are allowed to have and enjoy sex are heterosexual males.  They are praised for making conquests, for adding notches to the bedpost, for being virile and having large, potent genitalia.  Women, however, are expected to be virginal and shun sex.  When a woman is seen as sexually active, she is insulted and degraded as a slut, whore, hooker, loose woman, etc.  Can you think of a similar insult for a heterosexual man who sleeps around?  I can’t.

(Another aside:  these demands conflict painfully with our culture’s demand that a woman be beautiful and sexy at all times, and if they aren’t, they’re derided and shunned.  It's very confusing to be female.)

This unrealistic demand for virginal women stepped into the blinding spotlight of Rush Limbaugh’s big stupid mouth last week.  As pretty much everyone has heard by now, he spoke very, very ill of Sandra Fluke, who attempted to testify at a hearing discussing Obama’s rule in our new health care laws that religious organizations must cover contraception in their health insurance (he has since caved and said these organizations have one year to find an insurance company that will cover all of the contraception themselves; thanks a lot, Mr. President).  (By the way, read that link about the hearing.  It was a total farce.  Get outraged with me!)  

Limbaugh called Fluke a slut and said her parents should be ashamed of her.  Displaying a shocking and willful ignorance of how birth control pills work, he said Fluke has so much sex that she can’t afford all the birth control she needs and requires the government’s help.  He also said that she should disseminate sex tapes of herself so others can benefit from her subsidized contraceptives.

First, someone ought to tell that moron this isn’t about his money going to contraception, it’s about employers providing private insurance coverage, so Limbaugh’s argument that he must benefit from paying for her birth control is idiotic.

Second—and far worse—this is incredibly horrible sexism, sexual harassment, and hate speech.  I am absolutely appalled that he said these things, and I’m even more appalled that his punishment and public censure has been so minimal and impotent.  (And I’m appalled that his obviously forced apology only addressed his “poor word choice” and was completely insufficient.) 

I hate what the lack of reaction to his comments says about our culture.  I hate that women have so little value.  I hate that women are not allowed to have sex unless they’re married to a man and trying to have a baby—and even then, there’s still something wrong with them if they enjoy it. 

I also hate that Limbaugh’s words have very directly hurt at least one young woman (besides Fluke, that is).  This 16-year-old girl left school weeping on Friday because some classmates, who had heard Limbaugh’s comments and somehow found out this girl is on birth control, bullied and antagonized her mercilessly, calling her a slut and whore out to f*** all the boys in school.  They were also reinforced by a clueless teacher saying Limbaugh is an icon who isn’t afraid to tell the truth.  I started to cry on the subway this morning reading about how all her mother could do was hold her and cry with her, and share this atrocity in hopes that someday this will never happen again.

This should not be happening.  It’s 2012, not the 1800s or even the 1950s.  We women shouldn’t have to fear losing insurance coverage for our birth control.  (I’ve been on it for 5 years, and for nearly 3 years I didn’t have insurance.  This made my chosen medication cost over $80 a month, so I switched to a $25 generic that still strained my meager paycheck.  I found it was too hard on my body to go without.)  We shouldn’t have to fear losing all contraception entirely, and being jailed for contraband condoms found in a police search of our bedrooms—which will happen if President Santorum (who doesn’t believe we have a right to privacy) gets his way.  We shouldn’t have to fear being unable to have an abortion if we get raped, because we can’t cut through the growing forest of red tape.  We shouldn’t have to fear getting raped again by a state-mandated intravaginal ultrasound.  We shouldn’t have to fear our tragic miscarriages being criminally investigated, and getting jailed or executed if it’s determined that we somehow caused the miscarriage.  We shouldn't have to fear being bullied, condemned, and publicly ostracized for our healthcare needs. 

We shouldn’t have to fear being a woman.  Please, if the choice ever falls to you, choose to protect and uphold the personhood, the autonomy, and the equality of women.