I noticed this video from the Center for Reproductive Rights on YouTube today, after seeing it posted by a few different people on Facebook and Google+:
What were they thinking?
There are so many things wrong with this video, it's hard to pick just a few to comment on:
A recent study supports the popular opinion (used to justify the HHS birth control mandate, among other things) that providing free contraceptives to women reduces the rate of abortion:
Free birth control led to greatly lower rates of abortions and births to teenagers, a large study concludes, offering strong evidence for how a bitterly contested Obama administration policy could benefit women’s health. The two-year project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured, who were given their choice of a range of free contraceptives.
– Quote from NYT, based on findings in this study.
People infer that the Catholic Church is 'wrong about contraception' and should accept contraception because free contraceptives are proven to reduce abortions and unwanted pregnancies.
From the press release announcing the lawsuit:
The Archdiocese of St. Louis and Catholic Charities of St. Louis are taking legal action against the federal government of the United States of America. During a press conference today, Archbishop Robert J. Carlson announced that a lawsuit challenging the legality of the HHS mandate was filed in court this morning.
Archbishop Carlson stated that the Church “had pursued every other imaginable option to correct this problem,” and added that, “Right now the future is unclear, and any scenario that forces us to violate our moral convictions is unacceptable. At the same time, any sce- nario that forces our St. Louis area hospitals, schools, and charities to close would be dev- astating to the many people employed and served by these institutions.”
See the press conference video, posted to the Archdiocese's YouTube channel:
Frank R. O'Brien, owner of O'Brien Industrial Holdings, has filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Health and Human Services because the recent contraception mandate violates his right to freedom of religious belief.
The lawsuit marks the first legal challenge to the HHS mandate from a private business owner and his company. Until now, only religious organizations or institutions have brought lawsuits challenging the mandate. ...
I've been thinking about this lately—especially after the uproar having to do with the Georgetown student and Rush Limbaugh—but why haven't more people questioned the fact that the HHS mandate only provides free birth control, and not a hundred and one other drugs that are, in fact, much more helpful to the saving of lives? The Crescat, in fact, is also thinking about this (why free birth control...).
Birth control, let's face it, can be helpful for one of two goals:
Either one of these two goals is not something I want my tax dollars supporting. Besides the fact that I'm morally opposed to all forms of artificial birth control, I'm also opposed to paying for other people's sexual gratification, and I'm extremely opposed to population control.
There is no end to the amount of criticism the Catholic Church receives in regard to her teachings on marriage and sexuality, especially with regard to acceptable methods of birth regulation. Society has a basic rule that anything goes—whatever form of contraception seems safe and has a relatively high rate of success in preventing pregnancy is good for partners. But the Church's teaching begs the question: Are some forms of birth regulation better than others? Is there a fundamental difference in moral status between one form of regulation and another? And what of the 'contraceptive mentality;' is this a healthy framework in which to place human sexuality?