Is Contraception Health Care?

We religious folk are often accused of being incapable of, or afraid of, reason, because we believe things that cannot be proven. But, such things that cannot be proven, are the starting points of reason. We begin with definitions and assumptions that cannot be proven, apply reason, and draw conclusions. That is how reason works. What we do not do, is make reason into our god, and insist that all things must be proven via reason, with no assumptions on which to base our conclusions, as many of our critics do, as they attempt to use reason in reverse, starting with their preferred conclusion and trying to find the assumptions that would lead them there. We are often ridiculed for an inability to reason, while we have, in fact, flawlessly applied reason, and drawn proper conclusions that offend the sensibilities of those who do not like the place where reason has led. Such is the case of contraception and health care.

What is health care? What is its definition, our starting point for reason? We might say that health care is processes, procedures, or applications that preserve or improve health, or return the subject to health from an unhealthy state. Would that be a fair definition? If so, would contraceptives or sterilization procedures qualify as health care? Well, the goal of contraception or sterilization is precisely opposite to proper, healthy functioning of the body, is it not? Healthy bodies, when engaging in sexual intercourse, if things are working properly, may result in the female party becoming pregnant. That is the healthy state. Contraception or sterilization intends to cause the body's reproductive system to malfunction, which is in fact, the opposite of what a reasoned person would consider health care.

Often, the proponents of including contraception and sterilization services in our definition of health care will say that if you include Viagra, a treatment for impotence provided for men, then you need to include contraceptives for women. But this is an illogicality. Viagra is a treatment for a malfunction of the reproductive system, not a treatment intended to subvert the normal functioning of the body. A more logical parallel would be to assert that fertility treatments need to be provided to women who are having difficulty becoming pregnant, or other treatments intended to aid a woman who is having difficulty engaging in sexual intercourse to be more able to must be included. No one would object to such well-reasoned assertions. But to, assert that if you provide services that treat the improper functioning of the male reproductive system, you must aid women in subverting the normal functioning of their reproductive systems just does not make sense.

If the Catholic Church, or anybody else, does not wish to provide contraception or sterilization services as part of their health care offerings to their employees, they are on well-reasoned and logical grounds. Those who wish to force them to make such services available, if they wish to assert that their position makes any sense at all, are obliged to provide a reasonable definition of health care that would include the subverting of normal, healthy reproductive processes of the body. If they cannot, their demands are, indeed, unfounded and unreasonable.