Dear Sirs,
The
deceptively named Senate Memorial 3 would put the Colorado Legislature
on record as opposing health insurance coverage of contraception.
For millions of us (including more than 90%
of Catholics) birth control is a deeply personal and serious issue. It allows
us to have control over our lives, bodies, financial security and health. During a time when employment and
unemployment are already difficult, even distressing, republicans want to
introduce MORE employment problems by allowing employers to choose what health
coverage we should have. It is not simply
a matter of finding an employer who offers the health coverage that we
desire. For those with jobs, it would be
a painstaking task to try to find another job, and for those of us without
jobs, this would be one more frustration, fear and obstacle to finding suitable
employment. This is not just about
women’s health. This is also about family income, wellbeing, and survival. My family has two children because we do not
want more. We already have one child with special and medical needs that are a
health coverage issue.
I use
birth control, which my husband and I both agree on, not only to keep my family
stable with two children, which is very important to us financially, but a
specific birth control was prescribed to me to control hormone issues that my
body does not control on its own. In
addition, birth control has contributed to reducing the severity of cycles,
which is not only convenient to me, but which my husband also benefits from! These are standards of living and well-being
that neither the government nor employers should interfere with.
Single men and women will
not be the only ones to suffer if this republican, religious-fanatical agenda
succeeds. The personal sexual lives of
many married couples will also suffer if they don't want more children, or if the
health of wives suffers due to inability to obtain simple birth control which is
known to help with many female medical issues.
No one is calling for an end
to coverage for hysterectomies or vasectomies, both of which prevent pregnancy,
but are more costly and invasive, OR Viagra.... Men want to take Viagra, but extremists
want women to "put an aspirin between their knees," as recommended by
Santorum supporter Foster Friess and our nation’s embarrassment, Rush Limbaugh. This is a contradiction, and women are not
property for whom religious law is needed to make decisions.
Here are two excerpts about
Dr. John Rock, a devout Catholic who pioneered contraception:
"Another opponent of the Catholic ban was John
Rock, a devout Catholic doctor who taught at Harvard Medical School and who
would become one of the leading clinical researchers responsible for developing
the pill. Rock held that contraception was sometimes medically necessary and
often personally desirable for maintaining happy marriages and well-planned
families. He also believed that birth control was essential for those who could
not afford many children. Rock was by no means a radical. He was a solid
Republican and didn’t approve of sex outside of marriage. But he openly defied
the Catholic Church and state laws."
“Today, according
to the Guttmacher Institute, more than 99 percent of
sexually experienced women report having used contraception. But we are once
again debating whether women should have access to birth control. Fifty years
ago, John Rock, the socially conservative, Catholic, Republican doctor,
insisted that birth control was consistent with church teachings. He believed
that contraception was essential for women’s health and well-being, family
happiness, and the good of society. The vast majority of Americans of all
faiths and political parties agreed with him at the time. And they still do.”
“Rock
had witnessed the suffering women endured from unwanted pregnancies. He had
seen collapsed wombs, premature aging, and desperation caused by too many
mouths to feed. The experiences of his patients had a profound impact on the
man. Despite his faithful Catholicism and the church's opposition
to contraceptives, Rock came to support contraception within the confines of
marriage. Although he never went as far as to endorse birth control purely as a
woman's right,
Rock believed in the power of birth control to stem poverty and prevent medical
problems associated with pregnancy.”
Banning or otherwise
limiting birth control because someone might
use it outside of marriage is like prohibiting Sony or Panasonic from
manufacturing recording devices because someone might abuse them and fraudulently record movies and music
they are not authorized to record. That
does not make good economic sense.
·
Consider a $10 per hour wage-earner,
anyone you know: that's $1600 per month (before taxes), at best. The
house/trailer payment is $800 per month, car $200 per month, insurance,
utilities, two kids, groceries, and gas in the car is $200 per month right now.
The family qualifies for health coverage from the state of Colorado because the
wage-earner doesn't earn enough from his/her job to cover the kids. At the end
of the day, you and I, TAXPAYERS, are paying for those children to have health
coverage and food assistance. And there are things that employer’s coverage and
the free health
coverage don't cover; as we all know-there are some prescriptions health
coverages won't cover, and that family can't afford to pay out of pocket. This
whole thing is not as simple as it seems on the surface. Should we let that
family continue procreating, so there are more kids for us to pay for their food
and health coverage, or might it be prudent for us to ensure that the employer
doesn’t interfere with that wage-earner’s personal health coverage, that HE/SHE
pays for, so he/she doesn't keep making babies that you and I have to pay to
feed and provide state sponsored health coverage? The Guttmacher Institute
states that “Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of
prescription contraceptives…” This is an economic as well as a
survival and well-being issue.
·
How married couples view their intimate life
is not yours, or anyone else’s business. The intimate lives of other couples do not
have to fit yours or your religion’s definitions.
The bottom line is that your beliefs, to which you hold
yourself accountable, do not govern others. No one religion’s laws govern this
country, as it should be.
Senate Memorial 3 is out of touch with the majority of Coloradans, who support coverage of contraception and other basic health services. All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they or their spouses/partners work.
The Department of Health and Human Services heeded the findings of an independent panel of experts, the Institute of Medicine, which recommended that birth control be included as a preventive health care benefit. Forcing women to pay out-of-pocket for contraceptives puts an unfair, discriminatory cost burden on a certain segment of society, and women may choose not to use the most effective form of birth control due to cost concerns.
Colorado already requires the coverage of contraceptives in our health insurance markets. Furthermore, Colorado citizens support coverage of and access to contraceptive services.
Please say NO to attacks on women's health and rights in Colorado.
Sincerely,
Reverend Renée Lynn Ten Eyck
No comments:
Post a Comment