The Church can do what it wants, but is this logical?
Contraceptives are legal. The church argues morality. Jindal’s proposal makes contraceptives cheaper to obtain, and increases the risk of medical problems for women who don’t have a physician checking their reactions to the drug.
But notice the church is not arguing that Jindal’s idea is immoral because it puts women at medical risk.
They are arguing about the morality of using the drug at all.
By making the drug cheaper, Jindal is lowering the barrier for use (although really, anybody who is too poor to afford a medical visit can get a free medical checkup, or go to a free clinic, and get the prescription, and Walmart already sells the more popular drug for $4 a month so it is hardly going to get THAT much cheaper).
But since they make a moral argument, I would object — morality is based on a person’s choices, not opportunity. A woman who would desire in her heart to use contraceptives is not made moral because they can’t afford the drug.
Arguing that we should help people keep from sinning by making it marginally more expensive for them suggests that greed should drive morality, rather than a belief in doing what is right.
I don’t believe that contraception in itself is immoral, I am simply adopting the hypothesis for the purpose of discussion. My point being that Jindal’s suggestion does not appear to be immoral even if you oppose contraception, because he is NOT making it legal when it was once illegal, he is simply removing the government’s role in contraception, which actually helps the taxpayers who think that they are corrupted because their tax dollars are involved in contraceptive decisions.
Which I think was Jindal’s goal — to make contraceptive use an individual choice, so that doctors and taxpayers wouldn’t be involved, and we wouldn’t have political arguments surrounding a moral/church question.
There’s plenty of data to show that prescription availability of the pill has had serious negative side effects on the country. It is the chief factor in the sexual revolution and the rise of casual sex. This is a moral blight on the society that the Church rightly concerns herself with. It was predicted exactly by Paul VI and everyone laughed at him. But time has proven him prescient.
Making the Pill OTC can only exacerbate this problem.
Those on FR who use this opportunity to drive a wedge between Catholics and non-Catholics do a disservice to all of us who care about the health of marriage and sexuality in our society.
The “ho-hum,” it’s just contraception, who cares, doesn’t hurt anyone as long as it’s freely chosen” attitude you and others offer here will come back to bite you in the butt some day. But by then you’ll have some other explanation why it’s all the Catholic Church’s fault when she was just pointing out the facts of the matter: contraception destroys healthy attitudes toward sex. Period. Sex is about procreation. It’s also about other things but it is irreducibly about procreation. Deny that (which is what ho-humming contraception does) and pay a price for it down the road.
There is far more demagoguery here by Protestants seeking to impose their will on Catholics. By marginalizing us, you play right into Obama’s hands. Jindal is a moron. End of story. Making it OTC will increase it’s usage, which is contrary to what the Church teaches. Jindal is a Catholic (or at least purports to be), thus he has an obligation to actually do what the Church teaches including on contraception.
The latter --- removing third-party complicity or coercion --- is certainly a desirable end.
I think it's worth discussing. I speak as one firmly opposed to contraception. Making sure the cost is borne by the users themselves --- like bullets, Bibles, and beer --- could very well be a step in the right direction.