With a single strike of the gavel, the Supreme Court undid years’ worth of fighting for gender equality. This past Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that employers have the right to not cover birth control in their health insurance plans due to “religious or moral objections.”
After speaking with many individuals who support this ruling, I was astounded at the lack of empathy these people exhibited. One person told me that birth control “costs little to nothing,” as “low as $10.” Another individual told me that I would have to take that up with the First Amendment “in favor of the little sisters of the poor.” The most articulate response I got was from a man who responded, “tough s-t.” Though none of these people argued their points well, I came to see that their support for this ruling comes from 3 reasons: the country should protect religious freedom, birth control is still available, and birth control encourages promiscuity.
Through my analysis of facts and statistics, I learned that this ruling is oppression disguised as religious freedom: by giving employers permission to strip away birth control coverage, this ruling bars access to essential health care for millions of Americans, particularly minorities and lower-income communities. A lack of affordable birth control could lead to an increase in unwanted pregnancies, thus hampering many women from achieving their educational and career goals.
Proponents of this ruling argue that forcing religious organizations to provide for birth control in health insurance plans is akin to forcing them to abandon their religious beliefs. This claim assumes that providing birth control insurance coverage is equivalent to the organization supporting birth control, and the claim also implies that protecting an organization’s religious beliefs takes higher precedence over protecting an individual’s right to choose through affordable access. However, even if the organization provides birth control insurance coverage, individuals can still choose to opt out of using it. Allowing employers to deny insurance coverage for birth control, however, can cause up to 126,000 Americans, many of whom are low-income and minority, to lose access to birth control. Is it more important to protect the religious sensibilities of a few or the rights to affordable healthcare for many? Many religious organizations claim that their lack of support for birth control stems from the Bible. There is no passage in the Bible that explicitly prohibits birth control. In fact, the Catholic Church did not regulate the use of birth control until the 1930s, and at the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control, an overwhelming 80 percent supported the church expanding its teachings to allow for birth control. Due to a lack of evidence in religious texts that explicitly condemns the use of birth control, the religious freedom argument is flawed.
Despite the lack of coverage for birth control within health insurance, supporters argue that people can still purchase birth control within reasonable costs. They believe that birth control costs $10 a month or is “free” with the aid of government programs. However, these numbers could not be further from the truth. According to Planned Parenthood, a person must first visit a doctor to get a prescription for birth control. The cost of this visit can range from $35–250. The cost of birth control pills themselves can cost up to $50 per pack, but one pack only lasts about a month. This means that the monthly cost for birth control can be up to $300, which totals up to $3600 for an entire year. Though many individuals claim this is “affordable,” they must realize that they speak from privilege. To an individual earning minimum wage, this is not a trivial cost. If a woman is paid $16 per hour (the high end for minimum wage in many states), a monthly cost of up to $300 is worth approximately 19 hours of work. Though government programs do exist to help offset some of the costs, they do not eliminate the costs entirely, and an individual must be below a certain income level to qualify for them. This policy also disproportionately affects women of color from getting adequate birth control. In a 2017 survey done by Planned Parenthood, 57 percent of Latina and 54 percent of Black women experience difficulty in affording birth control. 50 percent of Asian women use less effective and cheaper birth control when compared to non-Asian women. In a nation where women of color are paid significantly less than white, non-Hispanic men, the consequences of this ruling will continue to perpetuate economic inequality for women of color.
For decades, opponents of birth control have argued that birth control makes women more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior. Supporters of this ruling are no different, arguing that women will be more likely to engage in casual sex with multiple partners if birth control is made more widely available. A 2014 study by researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine suggests otherwise: 70% of women experienced no change in the number of sex partners they had after getting free contraception. Furthermore, increasing access to birth control has helped teens prevent unintended pregnancies: a 2007 public health study by John S. Stantelli published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that 86% of the decline in teenage pregnancy can be attributed to easier access to birth control. CDC data indicates that as birth control and scientific evidence-based sex education became more easily accessible, the percentage of teenagers that had sex stayed relatively stable. These studies suggest that improving access to birth control has little effect on sexual behavior, and in fact, can improve sexual well-being. Taking away birth control will not take away an individual’s desire to have sex. If young adults continue to have sex with restricted access to birth control, the consequences can be devastating. Unplanned pregnancy can cause women to give up their pursuits of education and career. The child, most importantly, is also a victim, as he or she will likely be born to a mother who cannot financially or emotionally support a child.
Implicit within the claim that birth control encourages promiscuous behavior is the claim that birth control is solely used to prevent pregnancy. Many individuals use birth control for reasons other than contraception. Birth control can help women have more regular periods, lessen menstrual cramps and bleeding, and relieve symptoms of endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome. If these women are unable to access birth control at a reasonable cost, they would suffer greatly from the symptoms of these health problems.
The recent Supreme Court ruling is a ruling that prioritizes unfounded religious claims about the morality of birth control over the need to make essential health care available for all women. Supporters of this ruling argue that laws to protect religious “freedom” for Americans have been long due. However, one must ask, are we truly preserving freedom with this ruling? When your freedom is used to take away the freedom of others, that is not freedom. It is oppression.