I have read in the North American Latino press that there are now 20 states that require individual and group insurance policies to cover contraceptive prescriptions and medical procedures. Illinois has just joined in with Bill 211, which originated in the Illinois House of Representative.

Senator Iris Y. Martinez, who deserves much of the praise for this bill, said: “Contraception is a basic right of woman’s health, and planned pregnancies represent the healthiest pregnancies.” She added that it is cheaper to cover contraceptives than pregnancies. “People need to realize that these products are used not only as birth control, but also as a preventative measure against uterine cancer, osteoporosis, as well as for helping to regulate a woman’s cycle.” Among other statements, this was her most provocative.

A right
It would be proper to make clear that birth control is a value in itself, which justifies the protection provided by the state through measures like the one mentioned above. It is not necessary to utilize other kinds of arguments, such as saying that it is cheaper than covering pregnancies or that it has other important applications for feminine heath. What is not acceptable is that this measure has not been mandated before, and that there still continue to be states that are not even considering it.

A report from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists asserts that less than two months after Viagra was introduced to the market in 1998, health insurance companies already covered it for a variety of different uses. If we compare this with the 40 years that have been necessary for oral contraceptives to obtain this level of coverage (counting only the places where it has been approved, of course), I believe that it is more than justified that we raise our voices denouncing it.

False beliefs
Let’s admit it: if the state does not cover a woman’s right to have a child when she feels that she is capable of it professionally and economically, it will be answering to sexist and antiquated principles, and will be insulting a fundamental right.

I understand that the Church mounts this kind of uncompromising stance against contraceptives because, at the end of the day, the objective of the Catholic Church (ignoring the rest) has always been to limit the rights of women. However, these principles should not be accepted under any concept of the state: its duty is to guarantee equality between male and female citizens.

When a man receives news that the woman with whom he has had sexual relations is pregnant, and it does not agree with his professional career or his private or public life, he opts in many cases to feign ignorance of the matter. Those who do not want to live with a tormented conscience give money to the woman so that she can have an abortion or so that she can carry the fetus through the first months of maternity in the best possible way. The rest become the object of women’s misanthropy. Women can not do this.

We women must end our careers, destroy our private or public lives and have a child. After this, we must bring it up with the poor work that we are given, or with outside help if we are lucky. Clearly, this can be avoided by taking distinct steps. There is much more value in preventing a pregnancy than in having to carry out an abortion. However, there are individuals who can not open up their eyes and who stigmatize contraception as a sin or as objectionable for whatever other strange reason. What is truly sinful is that women must endure these individuals.

Ignorance
I was educated by nuns in primary school, and therefore I know perfectly why the Catholic Church abhors the contraceptive pill. In its opinion, it turns out being just like an abortion. This is what they told me. However, I have read much since then. The only thing that happens with the pill is that the ovum does not mature. Therefore, it is not conceived, and, in this form, the uterus rejects it, and it is expelled during a woman’s period.

When there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion. This is an example of the ignorance that dwells in the groups that do not support the use of contraceptives in sexual relations. The state can not think that it is useless to facilitate women’s access to contraceptives, even when birth rate is low, which precisely is not a principal problem in the U.S.

A child has the right to be born at a time when the situation is be peaceful, at a moment when it is has been desired, when the parents dedicate themselves to its education because they can. Above all, we are not dealing only with women or with men, but also with children. We are not in this world just to deal with our problems. We are here to place one more brick in the edifice of our society, to improve it a bit more, to evolve.

Therefore, one must reject ideas that strip away the rights of persons, whether they are of another sex, another race, another religion, or another culture.

Please, all I ask is that we open up our eyes.

Translated by Mitchell Cowen Verter

Page 1 of 1