Dear editor,
There are a few things in the July 2 editorial that were either expressed poorly or poorly researched. It clearly states, “… abortions are not included in this coverage.” The HHS mandate does force people to go against their conscience and pay for abortion in some cases. The “morning after” pills that are mandated can have that effect and in fact are sold in part for that effect. The two major pills are the old Plan B and the new Ella.
Plan B has been used for some time without prescription. Its active ingredient is Levonorgestrel that can cause changes in cervical mucus and the uterine lining. Changes in the mucus acts as a contraceptive. The change in the uterine lining, however, affects the ability of a human being in the embryonic state to attach to the life-sustaining uterine wall. That is an abortion.
Ella is a new morning after pill. Its active ingredient is Ulipristal. While there have not been extensive tests, this much is known. Animal trials have shown it to be embryotoxic, which means it is poisonous to life in the embryonic stage. Since the embryos of all mammals are extremely similar in these early stages, what is the probability it is toxic to human embryos? In addition, phase II clinical trials suggest it might delay the maturation of the uterine lining preventing implantation therefore, like Plan B, result is an abortion. So, some people of faith would be forced to pay for abortions through the mandate.
Another point needs to be cleared up. The editorial seems to lump together the old Rhythm Method and both scientifically tested Natural Family Planning Methods. Without going into clinical detail, NFP is 99 percent effective. It is successfully used by millions of couples worldwide. And NFP does not carry any of the risks and side effects associated with chemical intervention in the woman’s body as the pill and other devices do.
The editorial seems to equate denial of insurance for free services with total denial of services. As an economist I can assure you that someone will have to pay for the mandated free services and it won’t be the companies. The money must come from somewhere to cover the cost of the “freebies” and that “somewhere” is premiums. And premiums are paid by the employer and/or the person insured whether Catholic, non-Catholic or atheist. Many Catholic institutions self-insure so what are they supposed to do? There are other methods for insuring these services that, by media reports, is inexpensive, without forcing a conflict with the conscience of employers or plan members.
And finally, were Catholics targeted? Next to public hospitals, who has the next largest number of hospitals? Who is the largest supplier of social services after government? What group of education institutions is the largest after state systems? The answer is the Catholic Church. And why was the so-called accommodation written so narrowly that even Mother Theresa of Calcutta’s charity could not qualify since she helps non-Catholics? The answer — to not limit so narrowly would cause a large exemption that this administration cannot afford financially or politically. Why would Catholics not feel targeted given the way the administration first assured Cardinal Dolan of New York his concerns would be considered and then rammed the mandate through with no consultation. When he inquired about this, the media reports the administration responded that he should deal with it.
Sincerely,
Dave Roos,
Iola, Kan.
