MOOR VS. MOOR: Should the Obama administration require Catholic institutions to provide contraception?

PRO
Let’s face it: America’s culture is plagued by its profound use of sexual references. You hear about sex on the radio, in the latest television shows, in side conversations during class. There isn’t anything wrong with being sexually active, but it is important to take the necessary precautions to prevent any unwanted pregnancies. This is why Obama’s decision to federally mandate insurance for family planning services within the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations is only reasonable.
Of course, there is the argument that contraception and other preventative services are unnecessary because many of these religious organizations are strong believers of abstinence. However, although they would like to preserve their sexuality, they are human, and there are no guarantees that something is going to happen—or not going to happen in this case. This bill does not only provide contraceptive coverage to the employees of these organizations in the event that there are any unwanted pregnancies, but it also comes at no cost to the churches as many insurance companies have accepted the solution. At the end of the day, the cost of paying for family planning is less than the overall cost of managing pregnancies.
Jimmy Tang,
Copy Editor

CON
Recently, the Obama administration’s new health care law went into effect. Right away, there was strong opposition from religious organizations, especially the Roman Catholic Church, because the law mandates contraception as a part of health care, and this impinges upon their religious beliefs.
After some initial resistance, Obama created a compromise with the Roman Catholic Church, stating that religiously affiliated groups do not have to pay for coverage. If there are employees who want coverage, they can request it from insurance companies and the companies would provide it to them without raising the cost of their insurance.
However, the Roman Catholic Church sees it as a narrow compromise since it only exempts religious organizations that have self-insured health plans.
The government is still requiring insurance companies to provide contraception. Religious organizations who do not have self-insured health plans must pay the insurance companies, therefore indirectly supporting contraception through their insurance policies. Also not exempt are private employers who oppose contraception based on their religious beliefs but must provide contraception through their insurance policies.
Sarah Takhar,
Staff Writer