Comments on Contraception

You've heard the news.  First, the Department of Health and Human Services said, "Thou shalt provide abortion and contraception for all!  Without a copay or deductible!"  Religions institutions, which generally frown upon the taking of what they consider innocent lives, found this to infringe on their religious liberties.  There was outcry by Catholic bishops and Republican candidates for President.  Then the Obama Administration pretended to back off on the regulation by requiring that health insurance companies that supply religious institutions' employees with health care insurance provide the products and services, free of charge.  Victory for religious liberty AND women without contraception everywhere!

But wait, are we overlooking something? Yes.  Several things.  We'll start with the most obvious and work our way toward the more obscure.  First, the rule change is semantic.  Second,  declaring that a service shall be provided free of charge does not materialize condoms and birth control pills in the medicine cabinets of women everywhere.  Third, is this really insurance? Lastly, the use of force is antithetical to liberty.

It's fairly obvious to the casual observer that requiring, by law, a business entity (insurance company) to provide products and services outside the bounds of its contract with a customer (religious institution) implicitly includes said products and services in the contract.  I may have said it fancier, but you know you were thinking it.  Alright, some of you are thinking, "but it's a separate agreement with the final consumer."  But that's where the magic materializing condoms and birth control pills come in... or rather don't.  Insurance companies get their operating funds from (you guessed it) premiums paid by customers like the religious institutions.  They use those funds to pay for (you guessed it again) products and services like condoms and birth control pills.  Since the final consumer of the products and services pays nothing for them (by law), the religious institutions will foot the bill, in practice if not in the contract.  Reality says religious liberty is compromised.

The casual observer may not, at this point, even think about an even further underlying question: is this even insurance?  Insurance is defined as the equitable transfer of the risk of a loss from one entity to another in exchange for payment.  The word risk implies future uncertainty; the event could happen, but might not.  Contraception must be used before or during sex to be effective.  This means one must procure contraception before the actual sex, and then use it consciously.  If you know you're going to need a product or service, buying some sort of policy to provide for it is not insurance, it's a pre-paid service.


Alright, America has beat the religious liberty argument to death on this whole abortion/contraception coverage mandate.  It's a debate worth having, but like most debates today it skirts around the edges of the real issue.  Yes, we like religious liberty, but the core issue is not just religious liberty, instead it is all liberty.    Under liberty, the purchase of health insurance is a voluntary transaction between two free parties.  Voluntary transactions, by definition, preclude the use of force.  At it's core, a mandate is the use of force; it compels a free person (or group of free persons) to take part in a transaction they may not have otherwise.  It follows that mandates, like the "free" coverage of contraception, are antithetical to liberty.