About Reproductive Rights and Religious Liberty

          There is an issue that was not any major source of political debate in campaigns or elections in the recent past, certainly not in Presidential campaigns. Not to the degree that we are seeing now! I'm talking about the issue of reproductive rights in relation to religious liberty and what role contraception should have in health care. This holds true especially for women's access to oral contraceptives which many on the "far religious right" strongly oppose.
          Contraception as an issue is not the same as abortion, as abortion is the choice to end a life that has already been conceived (or, as many would call it, a potential human life). Contraception is a choice to prevent conception from happening in the first place. My observations of the current political debate, especially carried out by the candidates campaigning for a the spot as the Republican challenger against President Obama, is that time around, reproduction vs. religious liberty, seems to be the central issue to be reckoned with. We therefore need to deal with it if we are to make an informed choice about the Candidate of our choice. Even if you are outside the US and in an area where this isn't being politicized, you will need to deal with the question of contraception, especially if you are married and in your childbearing years or if you are raising teens who are or want to be sexually active. And there are some health care settings where you must deal with it.
          I have great admiration for those families who, because of their beliefs and their life circumstances, like the well-known Duggars, refuse to use any kind of contraception and keep adding one child after another to their family. The Duggars take the Biblical instruction to "Be fruitful and multiply" seriously; they are devout people of faith who believe that every child is a gift from God and should be welcomed as such. Yes, the Duggars have the resources, including the proceeds from a TV show and apparently good physical health, to be able to bear and raise a huge family. They have been in the position to have an unrestricted number of children, which we are told is around 20 children. In most cases, money will be an issue because most of us do not have unrestricted wealth and many of us may have health issues or relationship issues that make bearing and raising many children unwise, irresponsible or even risky. These factors, especially if you have more than one of these factors in operation, will limit how many children you can bear and raise or should bear and raise responsibly or safely. So, for most of us, even if we would want to have huge families, contraception is an issue. Unless you are unfortunate enough to be infertile and CANNOT bear children, there is no other way to limit family size other than sexual abstinence. And in marriage, that is NOT a good idea!
          In my own case, after I married, contraception was an issue because, from the beginning, I was discouraged from conceiving. This was not only because of our financial situation but because of my epilepsy and my Marfan's Syndrome making pregnancy risky for both a baby and me. So my spouse and I used contraception faithfully. Then I became unexpectedly pregnant and after the shock wore off, I was happy and excited. I did have to take an anti-convulsant during my pregnancy. Thank God, our beautiful, precious daughter was born healthy even though she was diagnosed with "Pervasive Development Disorder" which is a subtype of high-functioning autism. I have been unable to conceive again and have been strongly discouraged from bearing any more children. Today, for her sake, I'm much disappointed that we are being forced to raise our daughter as an only child though we are very pleased with her.
          The political Candidate who started this debate, Sen. Rick Santorum, is a devout person of faith who strongly opposes not only abortion but also birth control, especially oral contraceptives. I respect his personal choice to bear and raise a large family and to continue to add to his family. But finances and apparently health and relationships, are not issues for him or his wife. These things are issues for so many of us who have financial, health, or family problems. So, I don't think Sen, Santorum (or anyone) should put a guilt trip on anyone who feels the need to limit family size. Family size, whether it is large or small, is not right or wrong. What is a moral issue is respecting other people's choices and not judging them. Big families are fine as long as a couple have the resources, energy, health are support system to bear and raise lots of children responsibly, effectively and safely. Since most of us  have one or more reasons why we can't or don't feel comfortable bearing or raising lots of children, we will need to use contraception during some or much of our childbearing years. The debate is: Should it be the government's role to make it available? For contaceptives can be costly if one must pay for them out-of-pocket.
          What about contraceptives for unmarried people, including teens? The Bible is clear about that: It should not even be an issue, as contraceptives  are only needed if one is sexually active. And the Scriptures forbid sexual activity outside of marriage; it holds that sexual intercourse and bearing children are best reserved for the permanence, commitment and legal protections that marriage offers. As a child who was born to a teen mom and outside of marriage, I can testify from experience that teen parenthood means much hardship for a young mom and a life of permanent disadvantage for the child. And I have seen and read about many others who have had the awful experience of teen pregnancy. Many will say, "Use protection." I'm here to tell you that contraceptives do not always protect one from pregnancy and they often don't protect one from sexually transmitted diseases. I do not recommend contraceptives for young people; the ideal is to strongly encourage teens to save sex for marriage, for their own emotional, physical and spiritual well-being and that of their future spouse. It sounds old-fashioned but it is true; the best wedding gift one can give a spouse is one's virginity. Whatever your views on sexual intercourse and contraceptives for unmarried people, including youth, I encourage you to check out a website which discusses these matters in a sensitive, informative and truthful matter and is directed to young people. Please visit: http://www.lovematters.com/. If you are married and want to check out a website about contraception for married people and the ethics of using them as well as find other information that is truthfully and sensitively given, the following website: http://www.christianfamilyplanning.org/.
          The reason that oral contraceptives like the birth control pill and emergency contraception, "the morning after pill," can be controversial is that they are considered by many to be abortifacients, that is, they don't always prevent conception; when they don't, they work by ending a life already conceived, mainly by preventing the conceived embryo from implanting in the pregnant woman's uterus. Therefore, many people of faith strongly shun them. What these opponents don't seem to realize is that so many women use birth control pills to treat female gynecological issues like various menstrual irregularities. It angered me as a woman, as is has so many other, that the recent high-profile panel discussing contraception did not have even ONE woman on the panel. I also hate it that this issue tends to come off as one where men are telling women what to do with our bodies. It should not be this way! Birth control, bearing children and raising them, are as much a man's responsibility as a woman's. Can this be one big reason there are so many abortions of the unborn as well as abuse of so many born children, because women are doing the "heavy moral lifting" of these matters without male support? I think so!
          Whatever your view on abortion or contraception, because so many health care providers see abortion and even certain forms of contraception as very wrong and against their consciences, any political debate on reproductive rights and legislation on the availability of government funds for them, should always include a religious liberty or conscience clause. This is so that health care providers of faith or who simply believe that life begins at conception will not be forced to go against their principles and have to pay for or provide pills or procedures for their patients that they oppose. As long as we are talking tolerance, shouldn't we have tolerance for those of faith?
          There is the raging debate about whether many people, because of criminal or child abuse tendencies, should even be permitted to bear ANY children. Especially if you are unable to bear children or have seen or experienced child abuse, seeing or even hearing about people so easily bearing children and then hellishly abusing and even killing them, is infuriorating. Should contraception be made available? I say it should, but if they are unmarried, abstinence is by far the best choice. Many people declare that contraception reduces both abortions and child abuse, but I don't see that this is happening. There is no easy answer.
          What about the availability, even the mandate, of ultrasounds for women about to have abortions? What about vaginal ultrasounds? This raging debate, started by Sen, Rick Santorum, shows no signs of letting up. The argument for vaginal ultrasounds over abdominal ultrasounds is that the vaginal form is more accurate. But vaginal probing is invasive and makes the woman feel very vulnerable, as she must wear skimpy clothes with her legs falling apart in cold metal stirrups. When this is forced on her as a government mandate, this seems like a rape. No wonder there is such bitter opposition to vaginal ultrasounds! I agree that women who are about to have a serious, permanent procedure like abortion ought to be warned about the risks of this procedure and about what they are about to abort. They should be able to make an informed choice. Many post-abortive women have experienced tremendous grief and guilt and bear lifelong emotional scars from their abortions. If ultrasounds, even less invasive, abdominal ones, would save more of them from that and save their babies' lives, isn't this worth it? And they should be able to consent to this ultrasound, like any procedure.
          Even if Sen. Santorum does not win his party's nomination as the contender for the White House against President Obama, and this is taken out of the raging debate, contraception vs. religious liberty remains a force many of us must reckon with.
    

         

All People are Created Equal: What Do We Really Mean By This?

          A boy from an affluent home shows learning and behavior problems so his parents take him to professionals, who research his issues. He is diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome; he is sent to the finest private schools where he receives top-notch services. Today he is a respected, successful writer. His peer, from a poor family, also shows similar learning and behavior issues. His single mom takes him to a professionals, who conclude, with little research, that this boy is "emotionally disturbed" and has a "personality disorder." He is sent to public "alternative" schools with watered-down curriculums, learns little, loses hope and, unemployable, he falls into deep depressions and enters the mental health system.
          A pretty teen from an wealthy family vanishes. Her dad and other relatives, blessed with the resources to keep her story in the media, keep her case high-profile; she's found alive months later and today is successful and much-esteemed. Another, younger girl, from a poor family, vanishes at about the same time. Her family lack the resources and support to get her any media attention. Today, years later, this girl is still missing.
          An affluent woman is diagnosed with cancer and is, of course, quite upset and distressed. Her mom tells her about a top-notch cancer treatment center in a nearby state. As money is not an issue, this woman and her family move so she can take advantage of this center's excellent care; today she remains cancer-free. Another woman, who uses government-funded health insurance, also is diagnosed with cancer and also is devastated. However, she "freaks out," as most health care providers and doctors won't take her insurance due to lousy government re-imbursement. After much searching, she finds care but not before her cancer has spread.
          In a wealthy city, you can find a private neighborhood where the streets are gated, crime is very low, people drive fancy cars, children can play in the streets, people can ride bicycles and homes are large, beautiful and well-built. Nearby, another neighborhood features many small, crumbling, drab "dumps." Crime, including drug dealings and violent crime, are commonplace. Drivers don't stop as this is a public neighborhood; children dare not play in the streets or people ride bicycles.
          A celebrity begins a Facebook account for self-promotion. He has very little trouble "adding" people to his page, thanks to his name recognition. His product sells very well. His peer, an "ordinary" man, who is seeking justice for his brutally murdered sister whose killer is up for parole, also sets up a Facebook account. Desperate to raise awareness about his sister and to get support, he seeks to "add" people to his page. Multiple times, Facebook warns him of "abusing" it, blocks him from adding other users (longer each time) and finally de-activates his account. He has to "start all over again" to shore up enough support to circulate a petition to the parole board to keep the murderer in prison.
          A boy from an affluent home attends the finest private schools, gets a top-notch education and, after graduate school, he starts up a business that soon becomes hugely successful and has made him a billionaire. His peer from a poor home, equally bright and talented, goes to mediocre public schools, drops out and sees little hope for his future. Desperate, he turns to drug-dealing to get his cash.
          A celebrity is accused of a brutal murder; he is able to afford a "dream team" of high-powered, fast-talking lawyers. He is acquitted. His peer is accused of "assault on a police officer" without evidence. Unable to afford a private lawyer, an overworked, underpaid public defender is assigned to his case. After a short trial, this guy is sentenced to years in prison and to years of parole upon release.
          A bright, motivated, well-trained woman with epilepsy applies for the career of her choice, having prepared her resume and done all she could to make a good impression. To "keep it real" and avoid being accused of dishonesty, she discloses her epilepsy on her application. She never hears back; it takes her months to find a job. Her peer, a nondisabled person, equally prepared, lands a job with little trouble; self-disclosure and discrimination are not issues.
           A caring, respected, bright, well-educated woman, diagnosed with autism and epilepsy, is unable to conceive and searches out agencies, hoping to adopt. She discloses her challenges but feels that her credentials would more than make up for her disabilities. Wrong. Agency after agency turn her down. Her peer, without disabilities, and also possessing a good reputation, a big heart and an education, easily is approved and soon her empty arms are filled with a beautiful baby and, months later, with another baby.

          For each of these example there are many more intances of inequality and there are many other examples that I could have given. We often hear the phrase "All people are created equal." But I wonder, judging from every area of our system and from our culture and actions, if we actually believe this. We can see the way that resources are so UNEVENLY distributed in every area of society and culture, in health care, education, the criminal justice system, our social class rankings, our wealth and income distribution and in our social relationships.
          Yes, I know that when it comes to functioning, we are definitely not equal. There are those in positions of power and authority who tells us what to do and can make decisions for us that affect our lives. There are the greater number of us who must follow their orders and live with the consequences of their decisions. There are our lawmakers who create our system and the rest of us who must live with this system that we did not create. There are the "1 percent" of the "Wall Streeters" who own and control most of our wealth and the rest of us who may live in decent comfort, struggle to make ends meet or exist without enough to eat or clothe ourselves. There are the majority of us without disabilities who are pretty much able to live and function as we wish. There are those who disabilities, visible or invisible, whose impairments greatly limit their options in many areas of life and who must live with limitations. And on a world scale, there are those of us in North America who own (or at least experience) most of the word's wealth. And there are many, many more people on the other side of the world, who often exist in deep poverty, hunger, want and destitution; many, including children, die of hunger or disease.
          Yet we are all created equal in personhood, when it comes to being. This truth is not only according to our own experience but according to the Scriptures. We all have the same basic needs for safety, food, clothing and shelter. We all want to be happy and to be loved. When we are hurt, we all inwardly are stung. Our bodies bleed when we are cut. We all get sick. We laugh when we are amused (and maybe uncomfortable). We cry when we are heartbroken. We feel guilt when we have done wrong. We all are born. We all will die. According to the Bible, we have all sinned and we all need a Savior; we all have equal access to God's grace and favor though faith in Christ.
          But it is because of our inequalities in functioning and our ignorance, prejudices and intolerance, that cause so many of us to treat each other as unequals not just in functioning but as unequals also in personhood. Even in churches, where our congregations formally claim to serve and worship a God Who has created all of us as equal, we see exclusion, snobbery and cliques. I can say this from experience because I have experienced these at the hands of fellow parishioners; I'm sure many other people can share similar stories of their experiences in churches. Yes, I know there are many wonderful people in every congregation but even people of faith are human. And I see cliques and exclusion on Facebook, where many in my social networks talk only to each other and ignore everyone else. Cliques, snobbery and exclusion are when people stick only with those who are "their kind" and ignore everyone else.
          Months ago, I saw this status update on Facebook, "All people are created equal." Underneath this status, a person commented, "Too bad they don't stay that way." This blog has been my lament of this person's comment on the status. Actually, it seems that we all start out as equals in that we come into the world "in our birthday suits" and we become equal, one again, only when we leave the world, to slip into eternity and stand before our Creator and answer to Him about what we have done with our lives.
          This is the core of what adversity, sorrow and tragedy do for us: They re-inforce the truth that we are indeed created equal.