Birth control is a common practice across the world. However, the field of family planning is confronted by ethical issues based on religious grounds that hold high ethical standards s to the extent of perceiving birth control as a crime. Evidently, some institutions like Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College in Chicago decline birth control coverage for their employees and students because birth control violates the religious principles of the governing organization of the institutions. Notably, Wheaton College decided to end all the student health care coverage purposely to avoid violation of the regulations of the Affordable Care Act. The decision taken by the institutions is unethical because there is no legal provision that outlaws the use of contraception and birth control. In fact, the government allows for the manufacture and supply of birth control contraception. Even though the constitution does not clearly state that couples should access birth control, it provides for the right to privacy on reproductive matters for legal age citizens. Individuals should therefore allow couples the freedom of choosing whether to approach birth control without the intervention of anybody. The decision by the institutions to decline birth control coverage on religious grounds is therefore discriminatory.
The right to exercise birth control comes to odds with religious beliefs of organizations like in the case of Wheaton College where the institution decides to end all the healthcare coverage because birth control is in opposition with their religious grounds. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Inc.,the management argues that the contraceptive mandate as required in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violates the organization’s religious freedom which is protected by the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act ( Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, 2015) . The management denies its employees the freedom to use contraceptive for birth control to pin them to a religious belief system. Hobby Lobby denies full healthcare insurance coverage because of its stand that the Affordable Care Act violates its religious freedom. All the insurance coverage mandates like blood transfusion, vaccination will be denied employees at the expense of religious freedom. Furthermore, the proponents argue that other health care practices are like blood transfusion are sinful as held by religious organizations (Casey & Salzman, 2014). Such employers like Hobby Lobby will not pay for birth control cover yet the employee does not subscribe to the religious beliefs. The legalsystem should therefore not permit discussions on employers avoiding to pay for medical covers with theexception of contraception to an ironically discriminatory religious freedom.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
There are safer ways of approaching contraception which the church does not look at the benefits of birth control but only deny covers for employees at the expense of their religious selfishness. The religious proponents do not analyze the aspect of how beneficial birth control will be to society. For instance, scientifically, contraception promotes the health of women in society. Contraception is also important in the prevention of unwanted pregnancies ( Romero et al, 2015) . Implants have been significant in preventingunwanted pregnancies with a success rate of 98%. Similarly, oral contraceptionhas also been significant with a success rate of 99%. Contraception has reduced birthrates amongst teenagers in the United States by 57% since its introduction in 1991 (Puddifoot, 2017). This parallels teen pregnancies reduction in the US. Couples can space their births with birth control thus improvingthe health of infants. From research, short inter-pregnancy intervals are linked to low weight of babies and other critical factors in the health of babies. Therefore, an increase for open access and employee medical covers does in not only a fulfillment of their rights but improves the health of mothers and infants.
A decision taken by the organizations to deny student and employees birth control cover through the public health prospective raises questions on equity. Arguments on insurance coverage of birth control on the grounds of religious beliefs affect women that do not have financial help. Employees and students from financially unstable backgrounds depend on the insurance covers from their schools or employers to service their contraceptives needs(Korachais, Macouillard & Meessen, 2016). According to research, more than twelve million clients sought contraceptives services through Affordable Care plan. Over 2 million unwanted pregnancies have been prevented and the rates of abortion reduced significantly (Casey & Salzman, 2014). Denying employees and students access to contraceptives cover is likely to increase cases of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the US (Korachais, Macouillard & Meessen, 2016). Women from lower economic class will suffer the most. Religious beliefs on the provisions perpetuate inequality which is apparent.
In conclusion it is unethical to deny employees and students medical care coverage to prevent contraception on the grounds of religious beliefs. Women should be given access to a medical cover that will cater to their contraception regardless of whether they have a right to the medical covers or not. Religious proponents will argue that contraception opens a discourse on overlooking the morality of the society and that it’s against their faith. The main focus should be on the analysis of the significance of enabling access to contraception which according to research helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and overcoming health risks of mothers and infants. Religious organizations should therefore not decriminalize employees based on their faith and beliefs about birth control.
References
Casey, M. J., & Salzman, T. A. (2014). Therapeutic, Prophylactic, Untoward, and Contraceptive
Effects of Combined Oral Contraceptives: Catholic Teaching, Natural Law, and the Principle of Double Effect When Deciding to Prescribe and Use. American Journal of Bioethics, 14(7), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.919364
Korachais, C., Macouillard, E., & Meessen, B. (2016). How User Fees Influence Contraception
in Low and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Studies in Family Planning, 47(4), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/sifp.12005
Puddifoot, K. (2017). Dissolving the epistemic/ethical dilemma over implicit bias. Philosophical
Explorations, 20, 73–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2017.1287295
Romero, L., Pazol, K., Warner, L., Gavin, L., Moskosky, S., Besera, G., … Barfield, W. (2015).
Vital Signs: Trends in Use of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Among Teens Aged 15-19 Years Seeking Contraceptive Services -- United States, 2005-2013. MMWR: Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, 64(13), 363–369. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=102023221&site=ehost-live
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2015). 573 U.S. 354-356. Supreme Court of the United States.
2014. Justia: U.S. Supreme Court. Justia.
