Life Issues Forum
Forced Choice?
by Cathy Deeds
March 3,
2000
The National Abortion and
Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) issues an annual summary of
legislative activity entitled "Who Decides: A State-by-State Review of
Abortion and Reproductive Rights." This year's summary notes that 1999 had the
highest number of "anti-choice" (read: pro-life) laws enacted since NARAL
began tracking them in 1991. The most common new laws include: state funding
ban on abortions and/or counseling and referrals; abortion clinic regulations;
and parental notification laws. This is good news for pro-lifers in many ways,
but there is a disturbing trend in "pro-choice legislative activity."
The "most significant" legislative trend noted and supported by NARAL
lies in "contraceptive coverage laws," which are gaining acceptance in many
state legislatures. The measures are backed by NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and
other pro-abortion groups that have long lobbied for more funding and access
to contraception -- under the false assumption that contraception helps reduce
unintended pregnancies and abortions. These new "coverage" laws go much
further, forcing these groups' agenda on unwilling health care providers and
individuals who may not see all "contraceptive" methods as equal.
When state legislatures take up these proposals, pro-life groups --
especially those without a public position on contraception as such -- are
often caught off-guard. In 1998 Maryland became the first state to require
"comprehensive" contraceptive coverage. In 1999, according to NARAL, 67 state
bills requiring insurers to cover contraceptives were introduced in 34 states
(compared to 31 bills in 19 states in 1998). Nine states have enacted such
laws (CA, CT, GA, HI, ME, NV, NH, NC and VT), and several others are debating
them this year.
The laws are often modeled after a federal bill
(not passed by Congress) known as the Equity in Prescription Insurance
and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC) -- and most of the state bills use this
same name. They force private health insurance plans and/or employers who pay
for prescription drug coverage to cover all "FDA-approved" methods of
contraception, regardless of the patient's age, gender or marital status, and
regardless of the provider's conscientious objection or long-standing
religious beliefs against such coverage.
According to the American
Association of Health Plans, 93% of HMOs already provide contraceptive
coverage. A 1999 Kaiser Family Foundation survey of employee benefits found
that "80% of HMO's for companies of any size offer an oral contraceptive
benefit and 58% offer reversible contraceptives" while "only" 64% of Preferred
Provider Organizations (PPOs) cover oral contraceptives. Obviously Catholic
plans, along with some other religiously affiliated and even secular plans, do
not. But these data indicate there is no shortage of plans covering
contraceptives for people who want such coverage. The only purpose of the laws
being pushed by pro-abortion groups is to force such coverage on plans,
employers and families who do not want it.
The Church objects to
contraceptive coverage laws not only because it has moral objections to
contraception itself, but also because such laws violate fundamental
principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience. They force all
participants in the private health care market (health plans, employers and
consumers/patients) -- many of whom are Catholic and people of other beliefs
who oppose abortifacient drugs -- to provide or at least pay for all types of
"contraceptive drugs and devices," as defined by the U.S. government. These
include so-called "emergency contraception," which is typically administered
up to 72 hours after intercourse to destroy a developing embryo. This has been
approved as a method of "contraception" by the FDA. Catholics are not the only
ones objecting to such mislabeled "contraception." As two respected physicians
observe in the February 2000 issue of the American Medical Association's
Archives of Family Medicine (www.archfammed.com), it violates
women's right to informed consent to simply call such drugs
"contraceptive."
At the federal level, a slightly more modest mandate
was included as part of the 1999 and 2000 Federal Employees Health Benefits
(FEHB) program for federal employees. The U.S. Catholic Conference opposed the
mandate, then worked hard to obtain conscience protection so health plans and
individual providers who object on religious or moral grounds could opt out.
In large part that effort was successful (though Congress limited protection
for health plans to "religious" grounds). But few if any state laws contain
properly written conscience clauses. Such protection is sorely needed, or
"freedom of choice" will become a mask for oppressing freedom of choice and
freedom of conscience.
Federal and state governments should not act as
agents of the pro-abortion lobby, requiring Catholic and other health plans to
cover items which they oppose on moral and religious grounds. We can be
certain that this lobby will attempt to mandate other controversial
"reproductive" services to mainstream them into the health care market by
force. Let's be aware of what's going on and fight back to protect our
beliefs, before it's too late and we have no
choice.
___________________________
Cathy Deeds is a public policy
analyst in the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, the National Conference of
Catholic Bishops.
__________________________________
Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
National
Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference
3211 4th
Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202)
541-3070
