Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Contraceptives and control

Letter to the Editor

Published: Sunday, February 5, 2012

Updated: Sunday, February 5, 2012 19:02

I would like to reply to Notre Dame Right to Life officers' Jan. 31 letter, "Contraception and Dignity," touched off when it sternly condemned the use of artificial contraception. I am going to argue on behalf of the original letter's position by responding to some of the arguments made by "Contraception and Dignity," Feb. 3.

Emily Bienek, Joel Moore and John Galeziewski argued contraception can mitigate the harmful consequences of domestic violence, rape and drunken hook-ups. This argument fails because these problems cannot be solved by contraception. If women are really so afraid of being assaulted by friends, boyfriends, husbands and strangers they feel they must be taking contraception at all times to prevent unplanned pregnancies, our society suffers from a far greater problem than a lack of reproductive choice.

I would rather make the world safe from violence against women than hand out birth control pills to potential rape victims. Similarly, the fact that many Notre Dame students regularly get so drunk that they cannot control their behavior contributes to a host of problems of which unplanned pregnancies are only one. We can better resolve that issue by helping students drink responsibly than by constantly struggling to reduce the harm they do to themselves and others when they are drunk.

Bienek, Moore, Galeziewski and Anne Reser all made the point artificial contraception helps women by allowing them to regulate how many children they have and when they have them. This allows women to pursue other goals before starting a family and to responsibly regulate the size of their families once they have them. Abstinence before marriage and NFP during marriage can do the same things. Researchers at the University of Heidelberg in Germany found NFP is as effective as "the pill" at preventing conception, and (forgive the cliché) abstinence remains the only 100 percent effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.

John Galeziewski suggests NFP, even when properly used, is no different than other forms of contraception. On the contrary, NFP does not upset the delicate chemical balance within a woman's body in ways that could damage her health, as hormonal contraceptives do.

It also does not fundamentally change the nature of the sexual act by chemically or mechanically eliminating one of its key functions, something all forms of artificial birth control do as well. Finally, NFP makes sex more intimate for couples that use it by giving them a greater understanding of the natural reproductive process and how to work within it to plan their families.

Anne Reser deplores the fact "there are still people who believe that a woman's dignity is somehow tied to her ability and desire to have children." I believe she has misunderstood "Contraception and Dignity" on this issue. At the risk of putting words in the authors' mouths, I believe the people behind "Contraception and Dignity" would not call a woman's reproductive ability the sole source of her worth. Rather, they would assert that a woman derives her dignity from all of the various and wonderful gifts God has bestowed on her by making her in His image, and that her ability to create and nurture life within her own body is merely one of these gifts, though it is an awe-inspiring and very important one.

Women do not need artificial birth control to protect themselves, plan their families or affirm their dignity. They can avoid unplanned pregnancies and STDs by abstaining from sex before marriage and regulate the births of their children within marriage by using NFP. They can better respect themselves by embracing their ability to bear children as an important part of their nature than they can by denying the beauty and significance of one of the greatest abilities of any human person, which they alone happen to possess. The only thing women (and men) "need" artificial contraception for is to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want. Modern society thinks sex should be like television: entertainment on demand. Those of us who believe that sex is a total, loving and fruitful gift from one person of incommensurable dignity to another believe sex was meant for something more.

Elliott Pearce

junior

Knott Hall

Feb. 3

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

17 comments

Anonymous
Tue Feb 7 2012 11:23
How is it debatable? If this isn't excessive government entanglement what is? The Obama administration just passed the NDAA and tried to gain authority over the ordination of clergy. Clearly they respect the Constitution. Is there any Obama continued Bush policy you won't defend?
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 23:31
If we apply the Lemon Test to the Affordable Care Act we can see if it is unconstitutional. If it passes all three parts, it is a-ok.
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose. (Check)
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion. (Check)
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (This one could be debated but I would say it passes)
Looks like the bill is here to stay.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 22:17
It's so hard to do laundry the way I like it. ND should totally fund my laundering bill. And give me a limo for it. And send me on a celebrity limo to get the pill. Because my parents totally squandered their savings on my elite private school to get me in here. And on the condo they rent out every weekend to watch the Irish lose football games.

"Religious beliefs should not interfere with the right that everyone has to get health services, whichever they are. If religious institutions choose to provide civil services, they should then comply with all civil laws and regulations. "

You dimwit. So you want ND to pay for abortion and other health services?

You need to reread the Constitution. Take a theology or philosophy class while you're at it.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 22:04
According to this logic the University should be forced to pay for anything the government deems legal (abortion, euthanasia, etc.) In effect the separation of church and state should cease to exist. The government can mandate any religious behavior it deems appropriate. Obama just recently tried to gain jurisdiction over the appointment of religious officials and clergy. Essentially the Federal Government would decide who gets to become a priest.

These partisan hacks won't realize what a violation of conscience is until a vegan restaurant is forced to serve meat. Do you defend Obama's wars? How about his legalization of the indefinite detainment of US citizens without trial in Gitmo? Tax breaks for the super rich? He's Bush mark II but the way some people defend him you'd think he just ended global warming and saved the whales.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 21:22
"As a notre dame alum, I know how hard it is for students to get off campus to get a prescription - especially one that must be filled monthly and is incredibly expensive."

Indeed. And consider that most students manage to make the incredibly difficult trek off-campus to procure alcohol -- on more than a monthly basis, with absolutely no subsidy, and (for some 75% of undergrads) in complete violation of the law. Where there is a will, there is a way. Many lower-income ND employees spend more each month on cigarettes than on contraception, but the lack of employer subsidy doesn't seem to stop many staff members from smoking.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 21:15
Religious beliefs should not interfere with the right that everyone has to get health services, whichever they are. If religious institutions choose to provide civil services, they should then comply with all civil laws and regulations.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 21:14
Last post,

This is already covered by the University. This has been stated many times. If a physician requests a prescription for medical reasons it is approved.

The affordable care act is clearly in violation of the Constitution on many levels. You apparently do not even understand what a separation of church and state means. What is the University forcing on anyone? Every employee is free to go and buy contraception. The University simply refuses to pay for it because it is considered immoral by the Church. This is clearly a huge issue because it is an example of the STATE interfering in CHURCH affairs by forcing the University to act contrary to the central tenets of its faith. Your further suggestion that the University hire only Catholics is beyond ludicrous. Your solution is that all Catholic universities, hospitals, and social organizations fire all on Catholic employees? You cannot possibly be that stupid.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 19:01
"The only thing women (and men) "need" artificial contraception for is to have sex whenever they want and with whomever they want."

Unfortunately, this statement is untrue. Many women, including myself, do not have regular periods. If I do not take birth control, I have my period 3 times a month for 7 days. That means bleeding for 21 days a month. Having my period that often results in severe medical consequences for my body. Contraceptives are not just for having sex; there are many medical reasons where a woman would need them as well.

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 18:23
I still don't understand why the church and students are making this non-issue into an issue. The Affordable Care Act does not violate the first amendment at all. If the school only employed Catholics it would be another story. But the school employs people of different faiths and even people of no faith. The University cannot force their belief that contraception is wrong on its employees and take away what the government has defined as health care because it simply rubs them the wrong way. It is the separation of church and state that makes this bill both legal and necessary. If you want to live in a society governed by Catholic values then I would suggest moving to the Vatican.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 14:09
The Observer article entitled "HHS: ND insurance must include contraception" from Jan. 23 explains that the university's health insurance plan already covers contraceptives if "a physician requests them based on medical needs or for purposes other than contraception." Please stop using this as an argument for forcing Notre Dame to pay for contraception when it conflicts with the Church's moral teaching.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 13:39
How does forcing the University to pay for it make it easier for students to get off campus? This bill affects employees anyway, not students so your point is irrelevant. Additionally the University makes exceptions currently for employees if a physician recommends it for other purposes. Notre Dame's policies are in line with Church teaching and prevent no one from going out and buying birth control on their own.

What is out of line is the federal government trying to overstep the separation of church and state. The Obama administration has already tried to legislate on religious independence with regard to hiring and now it is trying to force the Church to pay for things the faith hold to be immoral.

Let me guess, you think the government should not be able to tell a woman she can't kill her unborn child but they should force schools to violate their moral principles. If you want birth control then go buy it and stop trying to force people who disagree with you to fund your choices.

Anyone with the slightest understanding of constitutional law can see how "backward" this first amendment violation is. If we don't start paying for birth control (as we already refuse to) then the quality of the University will deteriorate? How did you get a degree?

Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 13:13
As a notre dame alum, I know how hard it is for students to get off campus to get a prescription - especially one that must be filled monthly and is incredibly expensive. I started taking hormonal birth control shortly after my first period because the pain, fever, nausea, and migraines I experienced monthly incapacitated me for almost a full week. Notre Dame's policies are restricting a drug that is legal and has many purposes -not just that of contraception. It makes our school look backward and unfriendly.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 11:45
It's times like this where being a graduate of Notre Dame makes me legitimately embarrassed. These are the types of things that will end up turning Notre Dame into Franciscan University and rendering all of our degrees worthless. Please stop.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 11:44
Then they can go to the drugstore and buy the pill for themselves rather than forcing someone who believes it to be immoral to do it for them... how is this confusing?
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 11:25
It seems reasonable for them not to expect such an institution to not pay for certain things in their insurance plans. It's not like Notre Dame somehow prevents women from working here or being a student if they're on the pill. They just won't pay for it for them.
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 10:18
But what about those who do not share these beliefs, yet choose to work at a Catholic institution?
Anonymous
Mon Feb 6 2012 09:09
Thank you Elliott. You touched on what this really boils down to. People want to have sex without having to worry about any of the consequences. People get upset when they are told that their faith advises that they not live their life as dictated by petty desires.






log out