Santorum is really disagreeing with Obama in his attempt to make contraceptives for women taken care of by the government and religious institutions. I feel as though that falls into the category of health rights, which the world has had for some time now. Obama feels strongly that this also falls into religious rights and believes that regardless of your religion, these churches should be providing contraceptives in a mandatory manner. However, Santorum disagrees and feels as though this is an unnecessary and pointless expense of the government. The article states that Santorum claims, "the administration was trying to 'force' insurance on something that only costs 'a few dollars' and had 'no economic need'." I can really see two sides coming from this argument. As I feel that this is quite a valid concern coming from Obama, I can disagree and agree with Santorum's opinion. Obama sees that not everyone can afford the "few dollars" and is expanding the availability to women's healthcare. As that is a good concern for women, I disagree in the fact that religious institutions should be responsible to cover these expenses. Women have the right to refuse contraceptives, and it should be as simple as that. There are other methods in getting them, such as Planned Parenthood which offers free birth control. Which side is really for the women's best interest? Santorum's attempt to defeat the 'coercion' of contraceptives, or Obama's decision that it be provided for women regardless of religous beliefs? I feel as though the government should look at it in an overall manner, simply the fact if women want birth control, they can go out and get it. It should not be pressured onto them!
No comments:
Post a Comment