For this week's newspapers, I (very briefly) explain the differences between different types of Christians on contraception and how this relates to Hobby Lobby and other recent Supreme Court and Affordable Care Act issues:
Q: I am having difficulty
understanding the religious convictions which led to the recent Supreme Court
cases about health care and contraceptive coverage. Can you explain why the parties to the case
object to providing certain medications or treatments to their employees?
While this story that has received
considerable attention and raised some intense emotional responses, the
religious elements of the story have, unfortunately, been poorly explained or
largely ignored in the majority of news coverage. This missing element would reveal that rather
than a two-position issue (contraception vs. no contraception) there is a vast
diversity of approaches to this question among the various branches of
Christianity plays a significant role in understanding the convictions
represented in these cases.
For one group of denominations, there
would be no prohibitions whatsoever regarding contraception. It would be viewed as a matter of
unrestricted individual opinion, and no further inquiry regarding the method of
contraception, nor regarding the mechanisms by which they function would be
necessary. The list of denominations
with this approach would largely align with those with accepting stances toward
abortion and approving positions toward same-sex relationships. In some cases, members of this segment of
denominations may even provide or promote contraceptive products as a matter of
human care or social justice.
On the opposite end of the spectrum
would be those traditions which disapprove of contraception as a matter of
principle. Most notable among this
segment would be the Roman Catholic Church, which approves of only complete
abstinence or the natural timing of cycles as methods of avoiding or delaying
pregnancy. Additionally, there is an
understanding among a small, yet broad, portion of the conservative evangelical
community which encourages couples to be open to receive as many children as
God would grant them. Proponents of this
end of the spectrum typically point to verses where God commands Adam and Eve,
as well as Noah’s Family to “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” and the many Psalms and
Proverbs which speak highly of numerous children as a blessing from the
Lord. They may also employ an argument
from nature – that it is unethical to interfere with nature by the use of
chemical or barrier contraceptive methods.
The remainder the Christian spectrum
falls between these two bookends. For
these Christians, children are acknowledged as a blessing, and openness to
children is typically encouraged. At the
same time, it is also recognized that each family’s situation is unique, and
some may find it necessary to provide a longer break between pregnancies or
that medical, economic, or other reasons make limiting family size the wisest
course of action.
While they trust the conscience of
each husband and wife to guide this choice, they place one firm boundary – that
it is not permissible to take actions which have the potential to end the life
of an already-conceived child. In most
cases, this would allow a husband and wife to use barrier methods of
contraception as well as surgical sterilization, without concern, as dictated
by their circumstances.
Many would also be open to the use of
traditional contraceptive pills, patches, and shots, although this is less
universal due to questions about the potential of these methods to prevent a
fertilized egg from implanting.
IUDs are often seen even less
favorably because of their potential to prevent implantation. Those who observe this boundary would always exclude
such methods as “morning after” pills, which intend to prevent ovulation, but
have a secondary mechanism of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. They would also exclude “week after” pills or
any method which exclusively prevents implantation after fertilization.
It is this final category of
contraceptives that were at the center of the most prominent of these
cases. In fact, the most prominent
plaintiff in this series of cases actually provides 16 out of the 20
contraceptives specified by the Affordable Care Act, and only objected to
providing those methods which have the intention or potential to end
already-conceived life, for the reason that they believe they would be
contributing to an act of murder by funding such methods in their insurance
coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment