An argumentative Essay on contraception
President Obama recently introduced healthcare bill aimed at dealing with contraception services in America. The detail of this policy is contained in the article written by Munoz, entitled “Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions” (Munoz para. 2). In this paper, the author has attempted to explore the position held by the Obama administration on healthcare reforms and particular concerning women’s conceptions. The article argues that Obama main purpose for this policy is to protect the health of women by empowering them to make informed decisions on their fertility or reproduction activities. The paper comes from the premise that after all contraception is widely used in the US but not all the women can afford the contraceptive. This policy stipulates that the insurance cover will be paid for through deductions from the employers.
Specifically, the article talks of the need to avail contraception services to the American woman. This is a controversial issue considering that the provision of such a service may not go down well with some institutions, especially the religious institutions. Accordingly, the current essay is an attempt to examine the claims made by Munoz in her article with the aim of either agreeing with them, or refuting such claims based on the available evidence. Emphasis shall be on the provision of contraception services, and how this may affect individuals and institutions alike.
The claim by the Obama administration that churches are not required to contribute towards contraception insurance cover (Munoz para. 3) is not entirely true because when churches offer help to individuals within the community, they do not first ask them about their faith. In this case, there is the likelihood that such churches may not be exempted by virtue of those whom they serve. In addition, hospitals, schools, charitable institutions and universities could be exempted as well.
Another claim made by the White House in the article is that the government will not coerce any individual care provider to prescribe contraception. For example, a Catholic doctor would not be forced to prescribe contraception (Munoz para. 5). Whereas such rules might affect insurers and employers directly, as opposed to providers, the Obama administration might be seen as trying to religious employers for example, into subsidizing and sponsoring what they regard as immoral. At the moment, we do not have any federal conscience law that would compel them from doing this. Also, the mandate involves abortion drugs and this contravenes the Weldon amendment that the Obama administration strongly supports.
I would also want to take issue with the claim by White House that the Obama administration will not force anybody to purchase or use contraception (Munoz para. 7). The White House has further claimed that that the rule only affects the contents covered by insurance companies. At the moment almost half of the American citizens require insurance for conception. The majority of contraceptive users are Women who are forced to pay up to $ 50 on a monthly basis for private health cover. But thanks to Obama Administration Women will no longer have foot any bill for contraception services. Under the Affordable Care Act, Women’s preventive measures plus contraception services will be included in this insurance cover at no cost (Munoz para.7). The Obama administration believes that the new contraceptive will help millions of American Citizens to save money and yet receive quality health care services when they need them. The Obama’s contraceptive policy is aimed at reducing the high rates of unwanted pregnancies, less productivity and high levels of absenteeism from work which are detrimental to the American economy. Consequently, the free contraceptive health insurance will enable women to live healthy lifestyles and saving them money to spend on other medical services (Munoz para.7).
In Ms. Munoz’ blog, the Obama administration has made the claim that the policy being promoted does not cover drugs used to induce abortion such as RU486 (Munoz para. 6). Moreover, the government has reiterated that the contents of the policy do not in any way alter the firm commitment by the President to ensure that the limitations set by the Federal regarding funding for abortion remains strict. Furthermore, the Obama administration has said that it will not direct any Federal tax dollars towards elective abortions. Again, I have to take issues with this claim. This is because the policy in question already calls for coverage of Ulipristal (trade name, ella).The drug in question closely resembles RU-486, not to mention that the two drugs have similar effects. There are already tests being carried out to ascertain if indeed RU-486 could be used as an “emergency contraceptive”. In case the drug gets the nod from the FDA to serve that purpose, this means that the drug shall also be mandated.
The blog further claims that some of the states such as New York, California and North Carolina are characterized by identical religious employer exemptions. The claim is not entirely true because it is possible to avoid all state mandates, including those that have no religious exemptions by totally avoiding the coverage in question. There are some federal laws in place that obstructs any state mandates and as such, the affected states can decide to seek refuge in them. However, the federal mandate does not cover any of these havens.
Another claim made by the Obama administration is that contraception coverage would lower costs. In 2010, President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and part of it required that insurance plans would cover for any preventive care without passing the cost to the customer (Munoz para. 8). Birth control was therefore included in this health package as a contraceptive service (Clemmitt 699). Considering the fact that individuals would not be required to pay anything for contraceptives, I would agree with the claim made by the Obama administration. However, although contraception coverage would lower costs, it would be a financial burden to the taxpayer.
The claim that the Obama administration would respect the position of religious groups regarding the use of contraception and at the same time improve the availability of vital preventive services is somewhat controversial. How can the government claim to respect say, the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church, and yet the church is opposed to the use of contraceptives, something that the government is also trying to promote?
Reflective Letter
The title of my essay was, “An argumentative Essay on Obama’s administration position on the issue of Health Reform, Preventives Services, and Religious Institutions”. The aim of writing the essay was with a view to either agreeing with or refuting the claims made by the blog written by Cecilia Munoz, on behalf of the Obama administration. Accordingly, the essay was more of a critique of the article by the said author. My writing process entailed first having to read through the entire article. While doing this, I made sure to note all the claims made by the article. Once I was through reading the article, I then started with my research to assess the basis for the claims made. To do so, I made use of secondary sources that have already been published regarding the topic in question. This was with a view to finding out the level of authenticity of the claims made. Once I had established the authenticity of all the claims made, I then wrote my first draft in the form of an essay that critique claims made. The final draft involved counterchecking my sources once more to ensure that I had gotten the right content.
One of the strengths of the essay is that the counterarguments made regarding the claims by the article have been documented elsewhere, and I ensured that I cited the relevant sources. The essay has also first restated the claims made by the original author o f the article before refuting such claims or agreeing with it. This way, the reader is able to follow the contents of the original article even without first having to read it. On the other hand, the essay has a weakness in that it has not provided possible recommendations for future research in the same area.
One of the concepts of the reading that I found most useful while working on the essay was the claim that the Obama administration was not going to force any health care provide to prescribe the use of contraception by their clients. This is an indication that the government respects the rights of the citizens. By writing this essay, I have learned that matter of healthcare cut across political, social, ethical, and religious dimensions and that before any policy can be implemented, it is important to seek the opinion of the various parties that could be affected by these policies, either directly or indirectly. In addition, Obama administration should implement this policy regardless of the objections from the religious leaders in order to improve the health condition of millions of American women who cannot afford these contraceptives. But what is not clear is, if this insurance is to be paid for through employers’ deductions, how about those who don’t work. Are they excluded? Who pay for their contraceptives?
One of the strengths of the essay is that the counterarguments made regarding the claims by the article have been documented elsewhere, and I ensured that I cited the relevant sources. The essay has also first restated the claims made by the original author o f the article before refuting such claims or agreeing with it. This way, the reader is able to follow the contents of the original article even without first having to read it. On the other hand, the essay has a weakness in that it has not provided possible recommendations for future research in the same area.
One of the concepts of the reading that I found most useful while working on the essay was the claim that the Obama administration was not going to force any health care provide to prescribe the use of contraception by their clients. This is an indication that the government respects the rights of the citizens. By writing this essay, I have learned that matter of healthcare cut across political, social, ethical, and religious dimensions and that before any policy can be implemented, it is important to seek the opinion of the various parties that could be affected by these policies, either directly or indirectly. In addition, Obama administration should implement this policy regardless of the objections from the religious leaders in order to improve the health condition of millions of American women who cannot afford these contraceptives. But what is not clear is, if this insurance is to be paid for through employers’ deductions, how about those who don’t work. Are they excluded? Who pays for their contraceptives?
Works Cited
Clemmitt, Marcia. “Health Care Reform: is universal coverage too expensive?” CQ Researcher 19.29(2009): 693-716. Print.
Munoz, Cecilia. “ Health Reform, Preventive Services, and Religious Institutions”. Web. 2012.