On Wednesday, May 22, pro-choice and pro-life groups gathered in Wisconsin's State Capitol to debate a bill that made it into the legislature in just one short week. The bill, sponsored by Representative Andre Jacque (R-2), would make it much more difficult and expensive for a woman to get an abortion and would ban the use of public tax-payer dollars to fund abortions that fall under public employee's health insurance plans. It would also keep employers such as hospitals, schools and organizations with a religious affiliation from having to provide contraceptive coverage in their health insurance plans.
These proposals are dangerous for Wisconsin's women. We completely understand that there are issues behind abortion, moral and religious, but the fact of the matter is the United States, since Roe v. Wade, has decided that women have a right to choose whether or not they will have an abortion—to a certain extent, of course. We don't say "whether or not they want an abortion" because no woman "wants" an abortion. It is not something that women want to do; in fact, many women have called it the toughest decision they have ever had to make. Most, if not all, women would completely rather avoid unwanted pregnancy through contraception, the second issue raised in this proposal.
This bill would conflict with federal law as it is currently required federally that almost all public employers cover abortion in their health plans. A way that employers can currently avoid this is by self-insuring, setting aside a pool of money to deal with health claims. Supporters of this bill claim that public dollars should not fund something that some people morally disagree with. Though this proposal obviously does not outlaw abortion, it does make it harder and more expensive for women to have them. Rather than downright banning public dollars to cover abortion in health plans, perhaps it would be better to do what the bill plans to do, mistakenly, with contraception: keep certain employers from having to provide for abortions in their health plans.
As for the second part of the bill, the part which would keep certain employers from having to provide contraception in their health plans, this part is even more dangerous. Once again, employers are presently able to avoid having to provide funds for contraception through self-insuring. So, if employers really don't want to let women go crazy with their birth control (eye roll), they can. This, apparently, is inadequate as supporters of the bill claim that "self-insurance isn't a real alternative in most cases because it's expensive and would result in reduced coverage and increased costs for employees." Nicole Safar of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Wisconsin told the Assembly Health Committee that more than 90 percent of women use contraceptives, which is one of the most responsible decisions a woman can make. Otherwise, logically one would see that we could have many more abortions—probably even illegal ones—unwanted pregnancies and an even greater problem with overpopulation in the United States. All employers should be required to provide for contraceptives regardless of their moral values. Why is this? An employee is not required to use the contraceptives. If an employee's moral values do not conform with the use of contraceptives, there is no law saying they must use them. It's not a matter of morals, it's a matter of women's health and making it an exemption from health care coverage is discriminatory to women, primarily the 90 percent of women who use contraceptives. It seems to me that a group who is against abortion should want to prevent abortion as much as possible. We can tell you right now that making contraception not as easily accessible will not help this cause. The parts of this bill seem to contradict each other and we wonder where the real motivations lie.
Similarly, it is not the role of the state legislature to legalize morality. Regardless of creed, race or any other identification trait, the government does not have the right to prohibit an individual’s access to medical supplies simply because it is not the will of a religious organization that operates entirely apart from our government. The right to practice one’s own religion is undeniably protected, yet the right to separate oneself from religious practices is oftentimes ignored. To sacrifice the right to contraception, which reduces the probability for domestic abuse, neglect and poverty, because of an unwillingly accepted moral code implemented by an employer is just as equal of an injustice as religious intolerance.
We find it hard to believe that if the situation were reversed and this bill affected men’s rights, that it would be passed. While the idea of an independent woman making her own sexual decisions outside of any religious belief may be threatening to the “family values” agenda that has overtaken the Republican platform, the fact of the matter is that these women do in fact exist and contribute to our society. It is also overlooked that many married, religious couples choose birth control to plan their families. Having children responsibly or not having children at all should not be luxuries merely for those who can afford them, especially when an employer has absolutely no right to control his/her business in a way that affects the personal decisions of the employees in terms of their sexual decisions. They’ve declared this bill as a declaration of “religious rights.” In actuality, it’s the rights of the individual outside of religion that are being attacked.
