Five reasons why women care about HHS’ contraception mandate

A woman holding a birth control pill. (Eric Gaillard — Reuters) Today, when the Department of Health and Human Services’ … Continued

A woman holding a birth control pill. (Eric Gaillard — Reuters)

Today, when the Department of Health and Human Services’ “contraception mandate” was scheduled to begin, members of Women Speak For Themselves (WSFT)—a grassroots women’s religious freedom group—are demonstrating in Lafayette Park across from the White House. Though HHS postponed implementation of the mandate for religious non-profits to January 1, 2014, the women of WSFT don’t want anyone to believe that the cause of religious freedom is forgotten. And they don’t want anyone buying the phony message the government is selling (in the words of one of our members, Rachel): that “women care more about free birth control than freedom of religion.”

The 40,000 women of WSFT have many reasons for opposing the mandate. Here are their top five:

1. Women really care about religious freedom.

In the words of pollster George Gallup, Jr.: “A mountain of Gallup survey data attests to the idea that women are more religious than men, hold their beliefs more firmly, practice their faith more consistently, and work more vigorously for the congregation.” (George H. Gallup Jr., Why Are Women More Religious, December 17, 2002.) Furthermore, religion provides a rock solid foundation for women’s radical equality with men. There’s nothing like Genesis’ assurance that women were created to “image God” equally with men, or the New Testament’s account of women’s role in salvation history. Politicians and corporate America pay us intermittent attention when pressured. But the religious case for women’s equality never flags.

2. Women have founded, and run or work for, many of the religious institutions the mandate threatens.

Many of the religious institutions the mandate threatens were founded by religious women in order to pay attention to the people the mainstream ignored: females, slaves, immigrants, the poor. Many of the women in our organization have worked for such religious institutions and are loathe to see their lights dimmed, or even put out. There is a special delight in working for a religious hospital or school or social service. It comes in part from understanding that, at the end of the day, we are united on matters of faith, even if we disagree about this or that smaller thing. This is no place for the federal government’s heavy hand. It’s no place for its letters sent home to us and our minor daughters, or for mandatory speeches from the mouths of our insurance providers—assuring us annually that the religious employers we chose to serve don’t know what’s good for us; D.C. bureaucrats do.

3. Approving of birth control doesn’t mean you want the government pushing it.

Even women with no serious moral or religious objection to birth control object to the message in the mandate. When comfortably affluent and single spokeswomen for the mandate assure us that it spells freedom, we smell our government selling the idea that sex without commitment is the new normal for women. And no matter how many elite newspapers assure us that this is true, as women, we know that it’s a lie. Also, we can’t help but notice that this lifestyle seems to work out for affluent women—who generally finish college, marry and have kids after they get married— but not for the poor. In fact, since the government began funneling birth control into vulnerable populations, their rates of nonmarital births and abortions have increased, not decreased. The women of Women Speak for Themselves are insistent that someone stand up to the constant drumbeat of the government’s message that sex—the place where every human person begins—is emotionally and spiritually weightless.

4. “No kids” is not the sum of a “women’s agenda”

We can’t help but notice that the government and its friends in the “women’s rights lobby”—Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others—seem incredibly eager to feed women birth control and early abortifacients, but haven’t done much to address the problems we persistently raise: poverty disproportionately suffered by women and kids; the dearth of flexible and part-time work and paid family leave allowing us to earn a living while raising kids or caring for parents; the fact that our unpaid carework doesn’t count toward our retirement benefits; reducing our school debt so that we can get on with our lives in our 20s. We are committed to doing more to help women to fully and fairly live their lives.

5. Don’t insult our intelligence.

The government and its supporters’ tone and messaging on the mandate is insulting: “we are the only voice for women’s health,” “the mandate is scientifically supported,” “religious freedom is secured.” Birth control is obviously legal and widely available. Reams of literature (and lawsuits) and the testimonies of women point to the risks of some contraceptives and of the sexually uncommitted lifestyle. The manufacturers of “morning after” pills acknowledge that they really can act to kill embryos sometimes. The “scientific report” underlying the mandate was advised mostly by “experts” associated with Planned Parenthood or its former research affiliate. And we understand that coercing religious employers to violate their consciences is coercive, period.

Helen M. Alvar is a Professor of Law at George Mason University and the Founder of Women Speak For Themselves and Meg T. McDonnell is Executive Director of the Chiaroscuro Institute and Communications Director of Women Speak For Themselves.

Written by

  • mklewis

    If anyone of you believe the Catholic Church specifically is going to cave and go along with the mandate rather than drop health insurance for employees and dump them onto the federal exchanges, you are sorely mistaken. It’s like if I went to work for HRC and expected them to honor my right not to support gay marriage. They’d fire me.

  • leibowde84

    Churches are exempt. So, what’s your point?

  • jarandeh

    He has no point.

  • eribeck

    Thank you. As a woman, I am tired of the assumption that the sum total of my health relates to my “reproductive freedom.” A drug that alters the normal biology of the female body is not “health care.” Contraception is widely available at very low cost – it doesn’t have to be forced on employers to provide it as an option. It is an attempt to force compliance. If the gov’t wants contraception to be free, then they can just make it available free through the health department rather than using the employers.

  • dwynn

    People today are getting lazier than before, they want the everything easy and not have to think about how to something. They want the government (actually the pay payers) to raise their child and pay for contraception’s instead of having a talk about sex with that child. How many more sexual decease’s will there be killing of children. We now still have AID’s, Hepatizes B, and many other as well.
    People need to care about these children, not shove them out the door at age 10 to defend froe themselves. In the US as of 2010 (no new updates from the government) there were 1,368,200 in the juvenile system 12 year old and under totaled 106,800, 13-15 years old totaled 609,500, 16 years old totaled 347,700, 17 and over totaled 304,100, males totaled 986,700, females totaled 381,500, whites totaled 876,400, Minority totaled 491,700, Blacks totaled 451,100, American Indian totaled 21,100 and Asian/NHPI totaled 19,500.
    But I have come to find out that most people don’t care how many are in the system just as long as the government resizes, feed and tend to their medical needs. If you missed it the first time children that are age 12 and under in years totaled 106,800. I don’t know about you be this is disturbing to me because this is the age of three of my grandchildren’s that I do care about and love.

  • leibowde84

    Employees should always be able to make their own moral decisions. The Government should not dictate how to raise children. All options should be on the table, and families should have the freedom to select which one they see as being right. Of course, there will be bad decisions as a result of this freedom, but that’s the thing with freedom. there will always be bad along with the good.

  • xuinkrbin.

    I finding it telling just how little discussion there is in the comments of the legal issues involved. Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act apply to the regulation or not? Can religion be exercised thru an organization or must it only be exercised Individually? Can a Person or People be compelled, under threat of fines and, if not paid, imprisonment, to directly act in a fashion contrary to Their belief, such as mandating Someone opposed to contraception to subsidize the purchase of it for Other thru an insurance policy or, in the case of Self-insured policies, to pay for it directly. The lack of focus on these issues suggests Commentors don’t really have sound arguments to support Their particular positions.

  • AlfromFl

    I like to keep it simple – reinsert the conscience clause and quit violating the constitution. If anyone thinks that this admin is going to stop at something like the HHS mandate, you are underestimating the kind of people that are in this administration. By the time the Obama admin gets done with the people, if they are successful, there will be no rights that come from God, only the State who will give and take as it desires. The Pres will do all he can via executive order so long as the progressives in congress block any legislation that could rein in the executive branch.

  • jarandeh

    I know! And soon we’ll be eating Soylent Green, too!

  • jarandeh

    Well, let’s ask Justice Scalia, shall we?:

    “every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.”

    I’d say it’s settled.

  • jarandeh

    Things were so much better in the Olden Days!

  • Valerie Lewis

    The thing that bothers me the most about the government forcing this upon people is that if they get away with forcing us to pay for these things, soon they will be forcing abortions, sterilizations and birth control on women as they do in China. If this happens, we won’t have to worry about immigration because people will be leaving the country in droves! The entire country will look like Detroit!

  • Joey Robertson

    Religion has always been a source of strength, solace, counseling and praise. Why use that very source for pushing abortions? Abortion is a negative force on young girls, their minds and their bodies, not to mention the loss of their child. The government needs to leave religion out of their population control methods.

  • cricket44

    That YOU don’t need contraception is irrelevant. You don’t have to use it. For many women it is health care and not always affordable. Nothing is being forced on employers.

  • cricket44

    Al, your paranoia is something else.

  • cricket44

    The government isn’t forcing anything on people. Businesses are simply not allowed to discriminate against female employees. The closest thing to China is all the forced birth legislation being proposed across the country.

  • cricket44

    Religion is not being used to push anything. It is being * stopped* from pushing, actually. The most common emotion after abortion is relief, even decades later .

    Religion needs to leave the public sphere to the public.

  • kewake

    Please prove that relief is the most common emotion. I have been with so many women that would tell you something completely different. And even women who might feel relief initially, can grow to be very remorseful.

    And this is an opinion article in “On Faith”. It is going to be about religion. Religion is not going anywhere. Why argue about it.

  • cricket44

    Cloned, I wouldn’t say most women go through that. However, it is the *risk* all women take which is why we need to have the tools to avoid that risk if we so desire.

  • kewake

    If an organization, company, hospital is mostly supported by monies acquired by donations and other means collected from mostly religious means, they should not have to provide something they do not agree with. I know the job market is tough. But hey, if you dont like it, dont work there. Just like everyone says “if you dont like abortion, dont have one”. I have several friends who work for a Catholic Hospital. They are not Catholic. They have fantastic medical coverage. They pay $8 a month outside of the hospital’s medical coverage to obtain their birth control. They love their jobs. Religious Freedom should always be protected.

  • kewake

    And yes, it is an opinion article with comments activated. I just dont understand why people cannot take some articles for what they are. Just an opinion article. Why argue about it and try to make people think that your beliefs are more important than anyone else.

  • cricket44

    Frankly, religious organizations need to get out of the hospital business if they are unwilling to be full service. Patients ought not to be put at risk because of the religion of the hospital to which they are transported.

    The ONLY religious freedom threatened here is that of the employees. They have worked and earned their wages. There is zero right for the employer to dictate how they are spent.

    It’s an opinion article and people have the right to disagree. Why you fret so over that, I’ll never understand. ” try to make people think that your beliefs are more important than anyone else.”
    That’s your interpretation.

  • kewake

    So, you would like for all of the wonderful, in fact some of the best in the nation, hospitals shut their doors? Stop providing life saving procedures and medical services? Thousands would lose their jobs. You would prefer that over some companies choosing not to provide birth control? They are not telling their employees how to spend their money. They are choosing not to provide something. It is a benefit. Not all companies have the same benefits. It really is that simple. My current benefit package is completely different than the package I had at a prior company. I am not complaining, I chose to interview and take the job I was offered.

  • cricket44

    I believe you, Cloned, completely.

    It’s not just about birth control, Kewake. You really ought to do some reading outside your comfort zone. Shut their doors? If the goal is patient’s health, provide full service. If an organization is unwilling to do that, it’s hypocritical to be in the health care field.

    Employees pay for their insurance. There really is no legitimate reason to discriminate against women, which is all this “religious freedom” falsehood is about..

  • kewake

    Usually if a company is disagreeing to pay for something, it is lifestyle drugs. You will find that most companies that do not want to pay for birth control (unless medically necessary to control disease), they also will not pay for Viagra. If the drug/treatment is not necessary to maintain the employees good health, why should they pay for it? Anything outside of that should be the responsibility of the individual. I like Yoga and I know its good for me. I dont expect my company to pay for my Yoga classes. Why should any company HAVE to do anything? You say that abortion legislation is the closest thing to China. I say the HHS mandate is. It is government telling Religious Companies/Organizations to leave their beliefs at the door. Its wrong. It is because of their beliefs and support that they have become what they are. Its far from “falsehood”.

  • Hildy J

    The religious right scream that this violates religious freedom. How? It merely says that employers have to provide standard health insurance to employees. Jehovah’s witness non-profits can’t say that their employees will not be covered for blood transfusions, even if they believe the bible prohibits it.

    Like all the other hot button issues religion uses to boost donations, people who believe in their religion’s rules are free to follow them. They are not free to impose them on others. In truth, they want to restrict the religious freedom of their employees to take contraceptives.

  • kewake

    Do not work for or use any of the services that these companies provide then. That is your freedom.

  • cricket44

    Don’t take any federal funding *whatsoever,* there’s the organizations freedom.

  • Hildy J

    These “non-profits” are just companies. They should be treated like every other company. The Rastafarians can’t create a non-profit marijuana store because it’s illegal even if it’s part of their religion. Render unto Caesar and follow his laws like the bible tells you.

  • jarandeh

    So the thing that bothers Valerie the most turns out to be something that isn’t true.

  • kingcranky


    When women are locked up for NOT using birth control against their will, then your screed might have some merit, otherwise, it’s just nonsense and easily-debunked blather.

  • Carla Clark

    Or, jarandeh, she’s worried about something HER side, CAUSES.

  • Carla Clark

    Sorry, Ms. Alvare, but the only ones seeking to cut funding to welfare programs, the only ones seeking to lower the availability of full and part time jobs for women, the only ones seeking to restrict paid family leave, the only ones seeking to relegate caregivers to unpaid purgatory, and increasing student debts are the Pro-‘LIFE’ movement. Oops.

    You are the only ones saying that the ‘sum of our agenda’ is ‘no kids’. No, the only reason you state that this is our agenda is because it opposes YOUR agenda of forcing every woman to get or remain pregnant.

    In countries where abortion and contraceptives are illegal, abortion rates are slightly HIGHER. The only difference? Maternal mortality rates and women dying from illegal abortions. So, please, do provide us with SOURCES for your ‘information’, next time. I’d bet that we’d see the reason why the rates increased was because those promoting the Pro-LIFE agenda decreased access to critical supports for young, impoverished women, especially women of colour, who tend to have higher birth rates, IN THE FIRST PLACE. Oops.

    Fetuses are not persons. Even if they were, very few Pro-Lifers want to bring that to the LOGICAL conclusion, and name tumours, eggs, sperm, cells, fetus in fetu, parasitic twins, etc, as persons. Even you, yourself, although, it WAS you who stated that every human person begins with SEX. So illogical.

    No, someone who says that sex is only for procreation makes sex meaningless and weightless. After all, you DO realize that saying that sex has only one purpose as opposed to several imbues LESS meaning and weight NOT more? You DO realize that by saying this, you are implying that those who can no longer procreate should no longer have sex? Sex is now MEANINGLESS and WEIGHTLESS. You DO realize that you’re implying that the only purpose for women is to become pregnant with and give birth to as many children as possible? Thus, WOMEN are meaningless and weightless to you. (Cont….)

  • Carla Clark

    Oh, of course, I forgot, you’re Pro-‘life’. My mistake.

    Finally, birth control is NOT an abortifacient. It’s REALLY sad that Pro-‘Life’ is still trying to pass that falsehood around.

  • amelia45

    What is most important to consider is that no one side speaks for all women. Every and each woman should be able to speak for herself. And the only way to do that is to make contraceptives available so each woman can make her own choice as to their use.

    It seems to me that real religious freedom allows individuals to make their own choices and would actually deny a religious group or a religious employer the ability to require that someone live by a tenet of faith to which that person does not freely agree. We did not trade the rule of absolute kings and princes for the absolute rule of a religious leader or an employer.

    Religious groups who accept government money and work to provide services that are government regulated simply have to work within the confines of the laws and regulations of the government. It is especially important in a representative democracy – the laws and regulations are an expression of the hopes and the will of those who vote.

    There is a way for a religious charitable/service groups and free citizens to live in harmony. For ease of thinking consider Catholic hospitals, universities, and charities – who employee over 1 millions of our fellow citizens. If they want to be relieved of an obligation to include contraceptives in health insurance, they should not hire non-Catholics and not take government money. Neither should they attempt to serve in publicly regulated services that would require they follow a government requirement which is offensive to a faith tenet – for example, they should not work in adoptions.

    My approach is to say that religious groups are perfectly free to live their religious beliefs but where those beliefs intersect with the greater culture, the religious group is not allowed to deny the requirements of the rest of society on how they interact with that society. They are free to worship and live, but not to impose those beliefs on others. Such an imposition would just be a Christian version of Sharia.

  • DanaB1

    Exactly, Cricket – the forced abortion policies in China are simply the flip-side of the anti-choice policies of the religious right here in America. The true opposite is for the government to get out of women’s health/reproductive decisions altogether and leave those decisions for them and their doctor to make.

  • DanaB1

    “A drug that alters the normal biology of the female body is not “health care.” ”

    For one thing, *all* drugs “alter the normal biology” of the body of whoever is taking them. That’s why you take them – because something about that “normal” biology is problematic and needs to be fixed. Also, oral contraceptives very much *are* health care for many women, who need them for hormone replacement, regulation of their periods, etc., and they are expensive if you don’t have insurance to cover them. Even in the case of women who do want to use them solely for contraception, they are significantly more expensive than, say, condoms, also significantly more effective, and are something the woman can control for herself without the cooperation of her partner, which she may not have.

  • DanaB1

    “If the gov’t wants contraception to be free, then they can just make it available free through the health department rather than using the employers.”

    I think that’s an awesome idea, but the religious right would object to it even more vociferously than they have the contraceptive mandate in the ACA. I mean really – spending tax money to provide free contraception? At least the ACA only says it has to be covered by private insurance policies, not have actual tax money spent on it.

  • kewake

    Some people believe that it is. So, if there are people that believe that, they are bad people? They are not “smart”? They are not important? This is what you are asking for. You want your beliefs and ideas to supersede any other persons. Zero respect for any other beliefs than your own.

  • Catken1

    Some people believe that insulin is evil because it was created from animal products. Do you want these people telling diabetics they can’t have it, because animal lives are more important than theirs? Are you calling those people “bad people,” or telling them that they’re not smart or important, because you don’t want their beliefs and ideas to control whether a diabetic person has access to insulin? If you are diabetic and use insulin, are you showing zero respect for any beliefs other than your own?
    People who believe that women ought not use birth control because they think it’s an abortifacient are telling women that the life of any fetus who may implant inside her is more important than her right to decide who may use her organs, when and how, and to decide when and if she wants to make a nine-month full-body commitment to share her own personal organs and body parts with someone else, at great cost to her. You may be smart, a good person, and important, but you have no right to tell someone else what they may do with their own body, and you have no right to require a woman to abide by your belief that once she ceases to be a virgin, she must become an incubating machine, with no control over her most intimate organs, to be used by another without requirement for her consent and without any concern for what happens to her as a result.

  • Catken1

    OK, Kawake, so if your employer decides that their religious beliefs require ZPG, and refuse to cover your third or any subsequent pregnancy or child/ren, you will be required to either comply with their right to tell you how to run your body and your family, or leave the job you love and go find another in a difficult economy. Right?

  • Catken1

    Yeah, how DARE the government take away your right to dictate your female employees’ choices! Why, next, they might stop you from only hiring people from your religion, or your ethnic group, or your sex! They might even stop you from docking your employees’ pay if they buy something of which your religion disapproves!
    How dare anyone take away your freedom to constrict other people’s lives to suit your own beliefs! Next thing you know, your employer might have their right to cut off your health insurance if you have more children than they see fit taken away!

  • Catken1

    Maybe you ought to go back to the “good old days”, when women didn’t have their biology “interfered with” by good prenatal care, careful spacing of pregnancies, and that icky reproductive freedom. After all, a world where most women died young in childbirth or just after was SO much better for us, wasn’t it?
    And goodness knows, kids were better off being born into large families to exhausted and physically-drained mothers, many of them to parents who couldn’t support them or properly care for them. Kids working in factories, sweeping the streets, dying of preventable diseases – that was “normal,” not like this world where we alter natural biology with controlled family planning, vaccines, antibiotics, and other unnatural medical procedures and drugs, right?

  • jarandeh

    “They are not ‘smart’?”

    Well, yes, that’s exactly what we’re saying.

    Your beliefs are yours, but they don’t change the pharmaceutical properties of a drug.

  • kewake

    Some companies are already having to drop some parts of insurances. We have had to pay more and more every year and get less and less. So, really it is what it is. If it is a private company or organization that does not use any government funding, they have every right to choose what benefits they want to provide.

  • leibowde84

    Yeah. You can’t just change the definition of a scientific word to serve your own beliefs. You have to be “pregnant” according to the scientific definition of the word in order to be able to have an abortion. If there is no pregnancy, but, instead, only the posibility of pregnancy, then it is impossible to have an abortion.

  • MisterH

    Read the small print in the instructions, the pill can indeed act as an abortifacient.

  • Catken1

    Mostly it doesn’t, though, and that’s not its purpose.
    Can I bar you from using a drug that enables you to live your life and maintain your health, even one that only makes you feel good, because it prevents you from saving another person’s life by contributing your blood, bone marrow, or organs for their good?
    How are you justified in refusing to allow a woman to use a drug that helps her plan her family to suit her ability to care for and provide the children she has, that protects her health (and if you don’t think repeated, uncontrolled childbirth is unhealthy, look at the death rates of women before birth control was readily available…), and enables her to live a full and productive life, because you say it will prevent her from using her uterus, her blood supply, and her body parts to support the life of someone you deem more important than her, then?

  • Catken1

    Then maybe we shouldn’t rely on private industry to provide our health care, given that we pay more and get less for it than every other civilized nation on Earth.
    But no, private companies do not have the right to provide only the compensation they want to. There are limits, decided upon for the public good because we all benefit from a society where everyone has a chance at a decent living. You can’t pay your employees only $2 a week, you can’t hire twelve-year-olds for factory work, you can’t pay men twice as much as women for the same job, and you have to provide a certain level of health care benefits. If you don’t like that last, work for a world where people don’t have to depend on their employer for health insurance – and that will have the added benefit of ensuring that people who get too sick to work don’t lose their insurance just when they need it most.

  • scragsma

    Check the science, please. ALL birth control pills are abortifacient. Not to mention, the evidence is piling up continually that they are harmful to women’s health. The World Health Organization considers them a Class 1 carcinogen (Class 1 being the MOST dangerous).

  • scragsma

    I feel sorry for you, Carla Clark. You seriously need to think through what you say. Your entire first paragraph consist of gross generalizations – and not even true ones. Second paragraph – where do you get the claim that anyone is advocating that women have to become pregnant? No one claims that. Remaining pregnant, yes, because there is nothing that justifies taking the life of an innocent human being. Third paragraph – not true. Where contraceptives are readily available, abortion rates skyrocket. Maternal mortality rates have zero correlation to availability of abortion, but rather reflect availability of good prenatal care. Fourth paragraph – you ignore the obvious fact that a fetus is an entire and complete living human organism, which none of the other things you mention are. Fifth paragraph – no one claims that sex between humans is ONLY for procreation, though from a strictly biological standpoint that IS its only purpose. The rest of the paragraph is nonsense, once your fallacy is pointed out.

    I’ll leave it at that.

  • amdglovelife

    Helen and Meg,
    This is a very coherent and well written article! Thank you for all your work so that women can speak for themselves!
    God Bless You!

  • Patricia Hurd

    Thank you, Helen M. Alvare and Meg T. Mc Donnell, for your leadership and outstanding efforts in protecting our religious freedom. I, too, am a signatore of “Women Speak for Themselves.”
    The HHS Mandate stated that birth control is to be provided free of charge. Why birth control and not insulin? Chemotherapy? Heart transplants? Vitamins? Where are the priorities?
    Some respondents have stated that if Catholic hospitals, schools, etc. accept government money, then all government mandates must be observed, which, by the way, has been done until the present administration. How absurd! If these offensive mandates are enforced, these institutions would cease being Catholic! Catholic hospitals still do not perform abortions, and we still teach Theology in our Catholic schools. However, any government funds received by the schools (which are administrated by the states)are spent on services and supplies for the students and only the students: speech, E.S.L., supplemental and remedial instruction, nursing services, and consumable textbooks. As with any other funding, these monies come from our taxes, which we all are obligated to pay. This funding is for non-public schools, which include not only Catholic schools, but Sidwell Friends et al.
    As for hospitals and adoptions: It was the Catholic Church that first instituted hospitals and orphanages many centuries ago. More recently, it was the late Cardinal O’Connor who began the first hospice/hospital (St. Claire’s) in New York City, without any public funding.
    So where does this leave us? Catholic hospitals forced to perform abortions? Parents begging for a transplant to save their daughter’s life when refused by Sec. Sebelius? Some choice.
    As women, we are speaking for ourselves- for what we believe in as right and just! Keep the Faith, Helen and Meg. Run the old race, fight the good fight. We are not alone. God bless.

  • NFPworks

    Thank you Helen! I am amazed how the separation of Church and state has been changed. It was put in to protect religions from government imposing upon them. It seems as the so called choice only applies to what is mandated we choose. The Catholic institutions do not have the freedom to choose according to the mandate.
    If it is great sex everyone wants, natural committed sex is best. I have practiced Natural family Planning with my husband. We have been married now over 20 years. He knows my body and my cycle as well as I do and has a great respect for me. We have 3 children 2 years apart. We both knew when I was ovulating and the discussion of children was a monthly topic between the two of us on whether or not to conceive. I did not have a regular cycle so it does work. The studies have been done and the results were fascinating. Natural Family Planning couples have a divorce rate of less than 3%. Why is our government not promoting NFP?