On June 7, 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court legalized contraception (for married people, at least) and held that women and men have the right to privacy in making decisions about their sexual health. The case recognized, in law, the principle that women and men—not government—should decide when and how to plan their families, and paved the way for programs and policies that help women make health-care decisions that affect their educational opportunities, their professional work, and their families.
In New Interview, Gabriel Gomez Again Does Not Clarify Views on Reproductive Rights
On the failed Blunt Amendment of 2012 that would have allowed secular employers to exclude contraception and other services covered by third-party health insurance plans to employees and dependents, Gomez told the Globe, “Honestly, I haven’t read the Blunt Amendment, so it’s hard for me to go yea or nay without reading the full Blunt Amendment. That’s part of the reason why these guys and women down there should read these whole things. … I’m happy to look at it.”
When further questioned, he said, “Oh, is this like the Catholic Church and all? Yeah, I don’t believe the Catholic Church—or any faith, any organization like that—should have to do something that goes against their doctrine.”
The Blunt Amendment went far beyond allowing religious or religiously affiliated institutions to refuse contraceptive coverage, for which the Obama administration has repeatedly crafted exclusions and compromises regarding third-party health insurance plans used by their employees and dependents. The Blunt Amendment would have made into law the opinion of, among others, the general counsel of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Anthony Picarello, who last year suggested that even if he were running a Taco Bell he should be legally empowered to stop employees from accessing contraception without a co-pay.
In a dismaying move, the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) has proposed changes to the guidelines for family medicine residency programs removing the requirement that residents learn to provide contraception.
In one of the clinics where we work, a 16-year-old girl came in with a sprained ankle. She left with a prescription for birth control.
This turn of events is not as surprising as it seems: As family physicians, we treat the whole person. A quick update revealed that our 16-year-old patient had recently begun to have unprotected sex—and had no plan to get birth control. One of the reasons we love practicing family medicine is that we get to know our patients over time and provide the preventive care they need at every possible opportunity.
A majority of U.S. women get their basic health care from a family physician or other primary care provider, and often that includes reproductive health care. Especially in rural and low-income areas, family physicians do it all! They not only provide birth control but also provide prenatal care, deliver babies, manage miscarriages, counsel patients about unintended pregnancies, and, increasingly, offer pregnancy termination so that their patients do not have to travel long distances and see unfamiliar doctors for these services.
When Eden Foods’ CEO Michael Potter first joined the federal lawsuit in opposition to the new requirement to provide birth control for female employees in any company health plan, he claimed it was a religious objection. Now, according to a recent interview in Salon, he’s revealed that he doesn’t want to cover it because he’s a man.
For private companies to claim that they should be legally treated like churches is bad enough, but to claim that they should be able to discriminate against their employees because the CEO is a different gender? Ridiculous.
Sign the petition to demand that Mr. Potter and Eden Foods drop out of the birth control lawsuit.
Reading through his comments, the more Potter talks, the worse it sounds. From Salon:
“I’ve got more interest in good quality long underwear than I have in birth control pills, … Because I’m a man, number one and it’s really none of my business what women do,” Potter said. So, then, why bother suing? “Because I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control.”
Birth control is like long underwear? Like whiskey? No, Mr. Potter, birth control is healthcare. No company’s employees should go without routine healthcare that they work hard to earn just because their boss thinks it’s silly.
Explore this interactive image: The Truth About Emergency Contraception. Scroll over for facts, links, and more information as to why EC is NOT abortion.
Happy 41st birthday to the federal legalization of contraception for unmarried people!
March 22 marks the 41st anniversary of Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Supreme Court decision that established the right of single individuals to possess contraception. That’s right: As recently as 1972, you could go to jail for giving contraception to an unmarried person. And William Baird did. Eight times. In five different states.
Kori asks:
I’m and 18 years old and have been having sex for a year and been on the pill for about a year. I take my birth control like a ritual at the same time every day (the combination pill). Sometime my boyfriend and I don’t use a condom in the beginning to get him hard then we always put one on. My question is, when on the pill do you absolutely have to use condoms? They say that every time you have sex you NEED to use a condom. I know it is the most effective way, but I thought that the one of the points of the pill is so you don’t need to use a condom.
Heather Corinna replies:
We get asked about this a lot; about whether once you have a more effective method of contraception than condoms, like a hormonal method or IUD, if they’re still needed to prevent pregnancy.
The only right answer to that question, no matter who asks it, is that it really depends on what you and your partner want and need.
