Late last month, the Obama administration rolled out a new policy announced by the Department of Health and Human Services which mandates that all employers, regardless of religious affiliation, pay for FDA-approved contraceptives through their health insurance options, effective Aug. 1. Since then, Catholic advocacy groups across the country have promised to resist implementation of the policy. The issue is especially pertinent for students at Georgetown, as the University’s commitment to its Jesuit identity is so strong that it does not allow contraceptives to be sold or provided anywhere on campus.
The University’s allegiance to antiquated ideologies has passed the point of acceptability, and proves its negligence of student health care needs. These policies become worse when one considers that they have actually proven counterproductive to several of the University’s own social justice and equality initiatives.
In 2010 a student coalition called Plan A: Hoyas for Reproductive Justice responded to these policies with protests and negotiations to pressure the administration towards addressing provisions of sexual health, rape response, and contraceptive services. Despite their efforts, these issues remain unaccounted for in Georgetown’s student health insurance plan, and received no response from the institution. Last week, the University’s flippant attitude towards student demands for better health care provisions became apparent once again, as Planned Parenthood representatives tabling with H*yas for Choice were asked to leave Red Square when they could not provide student IDs to University police. Curiously, no incidents have been reported in which recruiting representatives of consulting firms, Wall Street banks, or buyback book services have been forced to leave for the same reason.
Another strange example is in the Center for Social Justice’s After School Kids Program, which aims to reduce recidivism rates in D.C.’s disadvantaged youth communities. Several teenagers in the program, who are often as young as 14, are pregnant, and some have been victims of sexual abuse, but ASK tutors are not allowed to discuss contraceptives with their students. This forced censorship of the program’s ability to discuss every option is particularly negligent given that HIV/AIDS rates in the District exceed those of several sub-Saharan African nations.
The University’s tendency to sidestep open dialogue concerning sexual health and access to reproductive services has seriously hampered Georgetown’s ability to support the health needs of women, particularly those who cannot otherwise afford these services. Obama’s mandate will affect Georgetown’s policies for the better, forcing it to protect the health of its own students and improving the effectiveness of the social justice initiatives which it claims to be the central facet of its Catholic identity.
Another excellent editorial from the Voice. Thank you for showing why Georgetown’s refusal to provide its community basic health services goes against our Jesuit values of cura personalis and social justice.
Given that the Voice has approached many issues with insight and maturity, it is disappointing and disturbing to see such a narrow-minded editorial.
Your description of Catholic beliefs as “antiquated ideologies” reveals a religious bigotry that should not be tolerated at any school, and it is a direct insult to Catholic students and employees of Georgetown.
In addition, your attitude is eerily similar to the views of anti-student activists like Lenore Rubino and Stephen Brown. They bought homes next to a university that has been around for over 200 years, then complain that students must leave the neighborhood to accomodate their desires. You have chosen to attend a university that has been Catholic since its founding over 200 years ago, and then act shocked to find out that your school actually is Catholic. Then you demand that the school compromise its beliefs to accomodate you.
At no point do you explain why a church-affiliated institution should be FORCED TO PAY for your birth control or abortifacients. If a student is not capable of making a trip to a local pharmacy, that person is not mature enough to be away from home attending a prestigious school.
A well written and poignant editorial. It seems to me that any institution, religious or otherwise, that simultaneously condemns abortion and then forbids birth control would be characterized as unreasonable and illogical, as the latter clearly prevents the former. The message is loud and clear for women – either be prepared to give birth or don’t have sex, another double edged sword. Talk about a direct insult. Georgetown absolutely should be forced to be rational.
@Daniel Rabbitt
A very interesting comment! I must say, however, that I am alarmed by your implication that because you do not agree with the author of this piece, you believe she does not have a right to speak her mind, and that her opposing viewpoint “should not be tolerated at any school.” That is really quite radical! Would not a marketplace of ideas be best for any institution of higher education? Are you so insecure in your position–and so afraid of the other side’s–that you must censor their speech and prevent them from making their opinions heard? To quote Antonin Scalia (a Georgetown grad!), is it fair for Georgetown to “license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquess of Queensberry rules”?
Regardless, I might also note that, of course, it is not the church itself that would be paying, but organizations associated with it which also often receive massive amounts of government funding. Shall we give such institutions license to reject any healthcare treatment they do not agree with? A Christian Scientist hospital rejecting vaccines and blood transfusions? Does the church’s affiliation trump the government’s, and the public’s? These are all interesting questions, but if you are going to simply declare such a discourse “religious bigotry” and encourage its suppression, you do both sides of the debate a great disservice.
@Mark Joseph Stern,
Censor their speech? You need to read it again. You’ll see I wrote “Your description of Catholic beliefs as “antiquated ideologies” reveals a religious bigotry that should not be tolerated at any school….” I would object to ridiculing Judaism or other religions as “antiquated ideologies” as well, as I would object to ridicule based on race and many other factors. In a free society, a person can object to a comment or stance without demanding censorship. Since to tolerate is to endure without repugnance, I have no problem saying that I do not tolerate bigoted comments, even if I believe such comments should not be forcibly suppressed. Just as people can discuss issues such as affirmative action or gay rights without resorting to demeaning language, there was no need for the authors to resort to such a term in order to give an opinion on this issue.