• Subscribe to Crisis

  • Hooked

    by Dale O'Leary

    girl

    When the Obama administration made the decision not to exempt Catholic hospitals and universities from the mandate to provide insured employees with contraceptives, morning after pills, and sterilization without a co-pay, one of those consulted was Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.  Richards obviously has a special interest in having contraception covered, since dispensing contraception is a major part of their business model. It may be ‘free’ to the woman, but Planned Parenthood will be paid for providing the service.

    While those who support the right to life regard any collaboration with America’s largest abortion provider as irredeemable, stained with the blood of millions of aborted babies, the administration appears to view Planned Parenthood as an authority on women’s health issues. The opponents of the mandate insist that their objection is centered on the mandate’s violation of Constitutional protection of freedom of religion; those defending the mandate argue that it will protect women’s health. While the Church would oppose the mandate even if it had no negative health consequences, there is ample evidence that giving unmarried women free contraception encourages them to engage in sexual relations with one or more partners. Besides exposing these women to sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy, each sexual relationship which does not lead to marriage, breaks up and these broken relationships leave emotional scars.

    Those pushing contraception on unmarried women do not discuss this all too common consequence. For example, Planned Parenthood has a website designed to help teenagers decide, “Am I ready for sex?” Nowhere does the site deal with what happens when the sexual relationship a young woman decides she is ‘ready for’ ends. Rather than following Planned Parenthood’s advice, before a young woman decides to engage in sex she should ask herself, “Am I ready for how I will feel when this relationship breaks up?”

    Young women need to know that intimate sexual relations trigger the production of the hormone oxytocin. This hormone causes the woman to trust her partner and to feel bonded to him. This is particularly dangerous if the young man is not trustworthy and sees the relationship merely as temporary recreation. ‘Hooking up’ literally hooks the woman emotionally, and when the man walks out, the woman often finds it difficult to un-bond. This can lead to depression or even suicidal ideation. A study by the Heritage Foundation found that sexually active teenager girls are three times more likely than non-sexually active teenagers to be depressed or attempt suicide. The ‘hooked’ young woman may try to kill the pain with drugs and alcohol, or rush into another relationship, only to experience yet another rejection.

    There is no pill to prevent emotional bonding. Condoms don’t protect the heart. One has to ask if those pushing contraception on young unmarried women really care about these women.

     

    The views expressed by the authors and editorial staff are not necessarily the views of
    Sophia Institute, Holy Spirit College, or the Thomas More College of Liberal Arts.

    Subscribe to Crisis

    (It's Free)

    Go to Crisis homepage

    • Cmatt

      Very intersting.  Oxytocin is also released during the labor process to promote contraction patterns. It occurs both naturally and as augmented by injection (pitcon is the synthetic version).  It also promotes bonding between the mother and newborn.

      • Cmatt

        that’s pitocin.

    • Cord_Hamrick

      All entirely correct, with one minor quibble:

      Mr. O’Leary states:

      The opponents of the mandate insist that their objection is centered on
      the mandate’s violation of Constitutional protection of freedom of
      religion; those defending the mandate argue that it will protect women’s
      health.

      …but some opponents of the mandate have broader objections than protection of freedom of religion, and these center on the whole ACA (“ObamaCare”), not just the HHS mandate.

      1. Constitutionality: To argue that Congress has authority to enact the ObamaCare mandate of employer coverage of health insurance for employees, the commerce clause has here been stretched beyond recognition in its interpretation. If Congress has authority to compel any private citizen or firm to do business with another private citizen or firm, merely because the kind of product involved could, potentially, be sold across state lines, then Congress has essentially totalitarian authority, which was clearly not the intent of the authors of the Commerce Clause.

      2. Freedom under Natural Law: An employer has a Natural Right to pay his employee whatever wages he and his employee agree upon provided he is not, in doing so, taking immoral advantage of the employee’s destitution or ignorance or need to avoid paying a just wage. This is a free exchange of value for value in which both parties benefit, and no just authority resides in the state to compel that it could compel employer and employee to include health insurance as part of the salary. The employer normally has every right to pay the employee in straight dollars.

      3. Conscience: An atheist who is pro-life purely as a matter of ethics will be required by his conscience to not participate in either abortion or abortifacient contraception. Such a person’s freedom of conscience is violated if the government compels him to participate in such things as a condition for being employed, for being an employer, or for working in a particular industry.

      Under the combination of the ACA and the HHS mandate, all employees must receive health insurance as a part of their compensation and all health insurance must include coverage of abortifacients “for free” with no option to opt out…which means in reality that the cost is included in the cost of coverage. Under such a system, all employees (of anyone!) are compelled to participate in the purchase of abortifacients; likewise all employers; and especially all health insurers. Thus neither a faithful Catholic, nor a pro-life atheist, may any longer be hired, or own a business, or, especially, work in the health insurance field.

      The combination of the ACA and the mandate is therefore not specifically a violation of freedom of religion, but of a broader but no less important freedom of which freedom of religion is merely a subset; namely, freedom of conscience.

      4. Counterproductivity: Setting aside the issues of contraception, sterilization, and abortion for a moment, the ACA will in the long-term hurt the affordability of health care in the United States, counterproductively ties health insurance more tightly to the employer-employee relationship than it was before, and allows the insured even less recourse than he previously had in the event that he is unjustly denied coverage of a necessary treatment. ObamaCare makes the healthcare situation worse than it was before.

      That’s actually the least of the problems I’ve listed here, for while there is a God-given right to freedom of conscience and to hire without one’s mode of payment needing to include health insurance, and while the government has no just authority to legislate anything which the Constitution doesn’t grant it authority to legislation (and ACA certainly involves Congress claiming powers far beyond those enumerated)…there is no God-given right for one’s legislators to only pass constructive and wise legislation. So the fact that ACA screws up our lives even more than they were before is merely our fault for electing dimwits.

      But the other items are perfectly valid reasons to declare the government’s activities in these areas usurpations of authority they don’t have. They are a move towards totalitarian oppression. Sure, a very indirect and almost “nice” kind of oppression, especially if you’re a left-liberal and if abortion/extramarital sex/barren sex are your sacraments. But the words still fit. Sure, the government won’t kill dissenters as in the Soviet Union: It’ll just deprive them of jobs, of working in certain industries, of being involved in education, or of being involved in charitable work, unless they play along.

      (Isn’t that bad enough?)

      • Sue

        This is an astute comment.  Especially the last part, where the congress voting this in is our fault.  And I would say particularly the fault of insouciant Catholics who can’t see the forest (Obamacare) for the trees (HHS mandates, Stupak amendment, conscience objections, only the side-issues were rallied against).  There could have been (and still could) have been a huge Catholic blowback against Obamacare itself,which could have forestalled all these other harms. Instead, we’ll have to put up with yet another hyped-up but ineffective “Stand Up for Religious Freedom” rally on 3/23.

    • Alecto

      It doesn’t help that these girls and boys are drowning in a river of filth which encourages these hook-ups everywhere…even the Family Channel!  Because kids use so much social media, unlike previous generations, the messages are constant.  Strike three is their own parents who become accomplices out of ignorance or fear of their kids being unpopular (aka jellyfish disease according to my one-time principal, Sr. Bernadelle). 

      Can I stand outside the high school and hand out Holy Cards of teenage saints? 

      • Bob Ambrose Regan

        I’ll meet ya there with a stack of Maria Goretti’s and Bernadette’s!

    • Pingback: RJ's Blog » Blog Archive » Hooked