HHS Dictates Free Birth Control

Why the Federal government should not distribute or mandate free birth control

1.  Birth control is a personal and optional choice.  Paying for it should be strictly a matter of personal responsibility.

2.  Taxpayers should not pay for optional drugs, devices, etc.  This includes birth control drugs and devices, and it also includes Viagra-type medications.  It also includes dietary supplements.  There are too many serious health care needs that can scarcely be funded.  The public treasury cannot support optional choices.

3.  Oral contraceptives are a recognized Class 1 carcinogen. Their connection with breast cancer has been demonstrated.  The government should not distribute or encourage or mandate the distribution of this known carcinogen.

4.  Government involvement in the distribution of a known carcinogen sets up the government taxpayers for an enormous class action suit from breast cancer victims in the future.

5.  Any sort of mandate regarding this known carcinogen will raise serious conscience issues.  Some will be based on health.  Others will have conscientious objections to the distribution of drugs that are also potentially abortifacient; others will have conscientious objections to distributing any unnatural form of birth control.  The “conscience clause” that exempts Catholic institutions is just a bad joke.  To qualify, the institution would have to serve only Catholic clients.

6.  One of the effects of the Pill and other forms of hormonal birth control is the thinning of the lining of the uterus.  This makes it much more difficult if not impossible for the newly conceived baby to implant.  That means that hormonal birth control has the potential to cause an early abortion whenever ovulation and conception have occurred.  That’s what is called the abortifacient potential of hormonal birth control.  It’s like playing Russian roulette with a multi-chambered gun pointed at the newly conceived baby.

7.  Government-funded and/or government-mandated free birth control increases the rate of fornication and adultery.  It gives the impression that sexual union is simply a normal part of everyday life, whether married or not.  The great increase in sexually transmitted diseases and out-of-wedlock pregnancies and births did not just happen.  These have happened as a result of the sexual revolution based on the societal approval of non-marital sex as well as the societal acceptance of the use of unnatural methods of birth control within marriage.  While the government cannot stop sexual immorality, it should not be encouraging it by paying for it.  The maxim holds true; You get what you pay for, and right now the taxpayer is paying both to promote the sexual revolution and to deal with its many harmful effects.  Read more on the sexual revolution.

Share this blog with your Congressional representative and your friends.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant  Click
Click “Google Preview” and read the first 3.5 chapters of this book!

One Response to “HHS Dictates Free Birth Control”

  1. Michael Knopf says:

    From the USCCB Cardinal DiNardo comments on the HHS mandate.

    “For example, a Catholic institution serving the poor and needy would have to fire its non-Catholic staff, refuse life-affirming care to non-Catholic people in need, and devote itself instead to ‘the inculcation of religious values’ to qualify for the exemption,” Cardinal DiNardo wrote. “Individuals, insurers, and the sponsors of non-employee health plans (e.g., student health plans in Catholic schools) would have no exemption at all. This effort to corral religion exclusively into the sanctuaries of houses of worship betrays a complete ignorance of the role of religion in American life, and of Congress’s long tradition of far more helpful laws on religious freedom.”

    “Those who sponsor, purchase and issue health plans should not be forced to violate their deeply held moral and religious convictions in order to take part in the health care system or provide for the needs of their families, their employees or those most in need,” Cardinal DiNardo wrote. “To force such an unacceptable choice would be as much a threat to universal access to health care as it is to freedom of conscience.”