Connect with us

The Sentinel

Opinion: Men don’t have uteruses, so why are they deciding how we use them?

Opinion

Opinion: Men don’t have uteruses, so why are they deciding how we use them?

The recent congressional hearing “Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?” on Capitol Hill made a serious mistake.

The mistake: Discussing women’s health issues without including any women on the panel.

I realize that the hearing is labeled as being about religious freedom and freedom of conscience. However, it was prompted by members of religious institutions who believe they should be exempt from covering employee contraception and other reproductive health. This makes it a discussion about healthcare.

Any healthcare decision that directly impacts only one sex should be decided primarily by that sex.

I ask the men reading this: How would it be to have your employer tell you whether or not you can have access to Viagra? Would you want an entirely female panel testifying before Congress about the decision? My guess would be no, since they are unable to truly understand how it would affect your sex.

Last I checked, men do not have uteruses, nor do they give birth. When they do, they can fully represent women on a healthcare panel, just like when women develop erectile dysfunction, they can fully represent men on a healthcare panel.

The base argument of the panel is largely a moot point now anyway, since the mandate has been changed so the insurance companies must pay for the contraception, not the religious institution.

But that did not dissuade the panel from comparing it to a hypothetical mandate requiring all food providers to serve pork, including kosher delis. What’s the difference? I think the fact that one is about a meal and the other is about a woman’s life is difference enough. Besides, your employer does not have a say in what or where you eat – they do have a hand in your healthcare.

What if your employer is a religious institution that does not believe in antibiotics? Does that mean they should be exempt from covering them? Surely that would be considered wrong. Contraception is exactly the same. Both are a necessary part of our contemporary healthcare practices.

For those who say birth control is different from antibiotics, consider that contraceptives have other uses other than their primary function. The Pill can also help regulate menstrual cycles, treat menstrual cramps, acne and PMS and is sometimes prescribed to help with serious conditions like endometriosis.

As a human being, I expect that if I have a medical problem, I will get treated. But if I am a woman working for a religious institution, I should be denied that?

Women make up half of the population. Yet they make up only about 16 percent of the members of Congress, and zero percent of the religious panel discussing women’s health issues.

Math is not my best subject, but something about those numbers doesn’t strike me as proportionate.

Opinions expressed in editorial and opinion articles are the views of individual NIC students. These views do not necessarily  reflect the opinions of the Sentinel, North Idaho College, or any other organizations or groups there-in. North Idaho College is not responsible for the accuracy of statements or opinions shared.

Continue Reading
You may also like...
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More in Opinion

To Top