The Battle of Birth Control-Solved?

Last week, the Obama administration found some resolve in the birth control issue. After some back and forth, it was decided that Catholic employers would not have to directly provide, through health-care plans, birth control to its female employees. However, there is a third party provider that will allow women working at said institutions to access birth control even it though it is not in their providers plan. This solution is modeled after a health-care plan in Hawaii that has similar provisions to ensure women are given all the contraceptive choices possible without directly compromising religious beliefs of the Catholic community. Catholics, however, do not acknowledge the Hawaii model because while opposing institutions can opt-out, they are required to provide the necessary information to women on where they can acquire birth control at a low cost. This still is opposite of the Catholic view on birth control where they do not condone contraceptives of any kind. 


The difference between from the Hawaii plan is that providers aren't suggested by the institution "but would involve a third-party health company helping to provide contraception coverage." (Huff Post) While there are still some issues on both sides of the argument, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops ultimately see this action as a step in the right direction to find some middle ground. This is helpful not only for them and their beliefs, but also Obama and not ostracizing his Catholic supporters.  This settlement involves the utilitarian ethical model in that is pleases the largest number of people. While some would like an ultimate decision either universally providing contraception or not, it considers all view points while still providing health-care options to those who seek it. 


Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/10/obama-birth-control_n_1267677.html

The Battle of Birth Control

One of the current hot-button issues facing political activists today is the issue of whether or not all companies should include birth-control in their health care plans even if it directly violates an ethical code or belief. Recently, President Obama made a decision that all organizations must offer contraceptives as a part of their employees insurance plan. This mandate also includes universities and non-profit organizations, even if they are identified as a Catholic organization. This Affordable Care Act, which is a part of the much debated "Obamacare" plan calls for employers to provide a minimum amount of health-care coverage (which includes the obligation to provide contraceptives) or pay a fine.

When the politics are taken out of the issue, we must look at the ethical side of forcing companies to directly ignore their ideologies (i.e. taking contraceptives, which the Catholic Church opposes). Never before has the government made it an obligation of a company to go out and make a purchase that is directly in violation of their conscience.  Some who oppose the new health-care mandate are saying this does not allow a free exercise of religion, that this is yet another example of Obama's "war on religion".

Credit: The Economist

In a case like this, I think it is unethical for the government to mandate any company to go against their idealogies-religious or unreligious. People tread lightly on this issue because the subject of birth control, religion and the government's involvement in religious institutions is such a sensitive subject. But when looked at objectively, one would assume that those who choose to be employed by an organization of any kind, are aware of their values and beliefs. Therefore, if an organization is morally opposed to providing/taking contraceptives, then they too will hold the same beliefs. When assessed that way, it is not in the government's realm of control to force these companies to provide something that is against their belief as it is probably something that its employees are aware of so comes with the territory. As this subject is debated, it is not only interested to see how the health care reform progresses, and what part it plays in the upcoming election. But for now, it can be considered unethical to put people in direct violation of their beliefs, whether or not religion plays a role.

Do unto Others as You Would have Done Unto You

We grow up learning the golden rule in the kindergarten sense;

Don't steal things from someone's cubby-hole
Don't pull that person's hair
When you borrow something, always give it back

And we always were asked, "Now, if that were you, how would you feel?"

From the earliest stages of our educational experience, we are taught to play nice and take other's feelings in to account. In other words, we are to practice the golden rule. But in many cases, as we grow older, we leave this mantra behind for a more selfish lifestyle. In the field of journalism (similar to many other professional fields) we are taught to be ahead of the curve-not to play nice. Be the first to catch a lead, be the first to report on a story, and all this is to be done with little thought as to who it may hurt.

As overdone as it is, I automatically think of the Joe Paterno and Penn State case. I know I don't need to go through the nitty gritty on this one, as EVERYONE knows EVERYTHING about this unfortunate set of events. I think of it because, when the student media group chose not to expose the situation-they were clearly not thinking, "now, if I were a victim of sexual assault in this case, what would I want people to do?" I think it goes without saying that the victims would prefer to expose the situation sooner rather than later to end the series of events. Rather than thinking of the small group of victims, the gate-keepers in this situation were acting with a "utilitarian" mind-set, trying to preserve the name of Penn. State and all those involved. But at what cost? The story eventually leaked, and at the expense of more people.

I understand this may be very idealistic of me, and perhaps childish, but I have always been a big fan of the golden rule. When deciding to capitalize on a story, withhold information, initiate a publicity stunt, or falsify any information, we should not only act upon our journalistic code of ethics but we should also act within the lines of the golden rule. Ask yourself, just as our kindergarten teachers would, "Now, if this were me, how would I feel?"