A COLUMN BY
TAYLOR MASCHGER
R
ecently in U.S. politics, there appears to be a continuous and tumultuous feud between church and state over a very wide spectrum of important issues that have managed to find their way into the public eye. One of the most recent debates between religious organizations and the government is that of whether or not birth control ought to be covered by health care providers. Beginning as early as October 2011, the Obama Administration began receiving the attention of the media after making a statement saying that beginning January 1, 2013, health insurance plans would be required to cover birth control expenses as preventive care for women, without copays. With the new requirement in place, the Administration had hoped that many of their goals, which included preventing unwanted pregnancies and ensuring less risk during planned pregnancies, would be met. Though widely celebrated and embraced, the requirement was also faced with a growing amount of backlash and opposition, mainly from those with religious affiliations. Especially in the Catholic church, it is against the belief system to use contraception; therefore, if a government mandate requiring contraception costs be covered by insurance plans were to be passed, some religious employers would be forced to provide a service that went against their morals and faith. As a result, religious organizations such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, declared that the mandate was an abridgement of religious freedom. Before I reveal my feelings on all the opposition the proposal received, let me make something very clear: This mandate was not issued as an attack on religion. This mandate was issued as a campaign to further women’s health and reproductive rights.