Naturally the president is under attack by the Catholic church and those who oppose contraceptive use. The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that Catholics only make up 23.9% of the US population. More shocking is the fight that is occurring for what seems like no good reason. The Catholic church urges women not to use contraceptives but they are clearly not very successful. Studies show that 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some time or another. With less than one quarter of America's religious population and women who do not follow the anti-contraceptive tradition, they are potentially leading America's health care system down a very dangerous path. The members of congress who support the Catholic church and anti-contraceptive supporters are fighting to allow any employer to deny coverage for any health care based purely on moral or religious objection.

If any employer is allowed to deny coverage based on their moral objection our already lacking healthcare system will further decline. In a fragile economy the incentive for businesses is to cut their expenses. Imagine how a company could cut its insurance premiums by omitting coverage for health care procedures. What if the company owner decides all illness is God's will and medical procedures oppose the company's beliefs? For those who don't think business can be so cruel remind yourself of the "pre-existing conditon" debacle. Insurance could deny coverage for medical procedures if they decided the condition originated before insurance coverage began. If Catholics or anyone for that matter doesn't want to use contraceptives that is their prerogative, but don't stand in the way of contraceptive coverage and basic health care for those who do seek it.

Some argue that a Catholic institution who pays for insurance that covers something they don't believe in is an infringement on their religious freedom. However, they are not directly paying the insurance company for the contraceptive coverage. The mandate does not require church-affiliated institutions to directly pay for insurance policies that include contraceptive coverage. Despite this fact some Republicans are still calling the compromise something of a card trick or an illusion because the religious institutions pay the insurance companies for their healthcare coverage. If the monetary amount paid to the insurance companies does not increase, what's the difference? The religious institution is going to pay the insurance company to cover their employees anyway. Without any extra out of pocket expense the employees simply have an added health care benefit. I wonder if those who oppose contraceptives realize their availability does not make them mandatory.

Although I have read several articles on-line about this issue I'm saddened because the voice of women is rarely heard. The church leaders and the House Oversight Committee, all comprised of men, speak the wishes of men, not women. With a pit in my stomach I am reminded of an episode from FRIENDS. The character Rachel goes to the hospital for Braxton-Hicks contractions and the male doctor shrugs them off as minor discomfort. She whips around and says "No Uterus, No Opinion". Why is it these male authority figures feel they can dictate what a woman chooses for her body in the free country of America? Prescription contraceptives are manufactured for women so shouldn't they have a voice or an opinion on the issue? Then there are the women who simply need oral contraceptives for medicinal purposes to combat endometriosis or menstrual cramps.

Women gained the right to use contraceptives in 1965 and there is a very real potential our struggles in the past could all be for nothing. In 2007 the former Hackley Hospital in Michigan merged with a Catholic hospital and it's employees lost their contraceptive coverage. One of the employees would like to have a tubal litigation because she cannot afford anymore children and recently suffered a miscarriage. In the past she got pregnant twice while taking oral contraceptives so they are no longer an option for her. Denying employees such as these contraceptive coverage simply because of a merger has taken away a freedom many American's enjoy because the new owner has a different belief. Many stories such as these will be heard everywhere if Republicans and anti-contraceptive believers have their way.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with American politics Republicans stand firmly with those who are pro-life. So not only do they encourage people to have unwanted children they also don't want to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Statistics below show that the majority of children are born in households with smaller incomes. The irony of Republicans opposing contraceptive coverage is that they oppose spending on social programs. Their arguments are counter intuitive. They don't want people to rely on public assistance but they're not going to slow the growth of that demographic.