on the abuse of labels in the recent contraception blowup

[martasfic]

Whatever else the recent blowup over the ACA contraception mandate might have shown, it's that Americans need a better epistemology. The news story has interested me on many levels and will probably pop up in blog posts from time to time. But one philosophical idea kept seeming to float to the forefront, at least in my mind as I read the different news stories. Namely, that the people participating in this debate seemed to be using concepts in very different ways. They weren't even consistent within the different sides.

This becomes clearer if you think about different groups. There was a lot of talk in left-leaning circles about "the 98%" – a statistic that 98% of sexually active Catholic women had used contraception at least once, and that a high number (I think in the neighborhood of 70-80%) used it regularly or were currently using it. The implication was that this meant Catholicism no longer had a major problem with birth control. I previously argued that religious institutions like the RCC don't operate like unions or PACs, where all you need for a position change is a new consensus view. The RCC, like all religious institutions represents its tradition, not the current view of all its members; and the members get to vote by agreeing to be a part of it or not.

So it's in the church's best interest to make its positions relevant to its members, through education and dialogue. I may not agree with the position (in point of fact I don't), but it's not my opinion – or any Catholic parishioner (which I'm not), or the majority opinion of those parishioners – that decides here. Here, what it means to be a Catholic is controlled by those people charged with interpreting and guarding Catholic tradition. The bishops and the rest of the Catholic hierarchy.

The liberals have it wrong here. I say this as a liberal! But on this particular point, they're off base.

Interestingly, they're also wrong on a related issue but for exactly the opposite reason. This one came up in the context of hearings on this same mandate. There was a bit of a brouhaha over the fact that there weren't any women on the first panel that appeared before the committee, and specifically that one witness who had been denied contraception by her Catholic employer that she needed for non-reproductive reasons wasn't allowed to testify. The charge of "Where were the women?" was pronounced immediately by Nancy Pelosi and soon went viral. I wasn't convinced even at first, because this particular hearing was over whether the mandate posed a challenge to religious freedom, and the woman they wanted to testify didn't have any comment on that particular issue. Do I wish the various religious groups had highlighted some of their female leaders (which do exist)? Yes, if only to drive home the point that religion is not all male-dominated, and that the lashback was tempered by an awareness of the reality women live. But the proposed witness was none of these things, and so I didn't feel excluded on those grounds.

It's what came next where things got really interesting. See, as it turns out there was a woman on the second panel that testified before the hearing (two in fact), but they didn't testify in favor of the mandate. So the idea that no women had testified was revamped a bit to say no women had testified for women. This irked me in the same way that the line that anti-abortion access laws are somehow a war against women. I don't like those laws, I find them insulting in their insinuation that women's decisions couldn't possibly be well-reasoned and I think some of them (like the recent narrow miss down in Virginia) are awful assaults on women and turn the doctor-patient relation on its head.

But I don't think attacks on them are a war on women, because lots of women do resent having reproduction labeled as an illness. Women tend to be among the most ardent pro-lifers, and they probably see abortion as an assault not only on a child but also on their way of life. I don't agree with them, but it is disenfranchising to them to suggest that unless you hold a certain view, you are not speaking for women or you're not a real women. Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann are women, and as much as I hate what they stand for on nearly every issue, they represent the viewpoints of many women.

The difference here is that "women" are not an institution like a church is. So here, you can't say you are protecting the institution of womanhood. If you were talking about a specific institution organized along gender lines (NOW, for instance) then, yes, we have a right to say that such-and-such a legislation is anti-NOW or against the interests of NOW. But the larger issue that a legislation is anti-woman? That only makes sense if you think of women as a monolithic group. We aren't that, and again the Democratic party is on the wrong end of it to suggest we are.

I've made my feelings on this mandate clear in recent posts, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize sloppy sentiments when I see them. Ironically, the left-leaning blogosphere is contradicting itself when saying on the one hand the RCC must take every member's position into account with no regard for history when determining the RCC's position, and then on the other hand that "women's issues" should only be decided by the "right" kind of women. Ironic that they get it wrong in both cases, really.  

Comments

[vulgarweed.livejournal.com]

The thing is, the "religious freedom" argument is increasingly one that's predominantly used by the powerful against the less powerful, in order to keep the less powerful in that state.

There is no serious threat of any kind to Christianity in the United States. There never has been, and it's hard to foresee how there ever could be in the next century. But that is the rhetoric that the people leading this attack on birth control are using--and that attack in itself has to be understood in the context of a much larger attack on any kind of health care funding that is in any way shared by a large pool of people instead of "every man for himself."

One of the most offensive elements of this whole debate is that employers do not, and should not, have the rights to dictate what kinds of medical care their employees receive. That is unreasonably intrusive - and if you frame this in terms of women's health care, which includes various treatments of the reproductive organs, this means an employer has the right to scrutinize and make judgments about female workers' bodies in a way they do not presume to for male workers.

For example: I was on the Pill from ages 19 to 32. It was prescribed for me as a treatment for endometriosis, and it was a very good one - cut the pain in half, lessened my overly-heavy flow, shrank my internal scar tissue, and regulated my hormones so that I didn't produce nearly as much excess bad stuff as I would have without it. Without it, I would have been in a lot more agonizing pain every month, I probably would have required a lot more surgical procedures than the one I had, and would be in a much worse position with regards to adhesions and scarring and benign but painful growths than I am now.

Did I ever want to have to sit down and tell my fucking boss why three different doctors told me I needed the Pill? Was it any of his goddamn business? Is it any employer's business what's going on with any employee's internal organs?

To a non-Christian, it's irrelevant whatever any members of any Christian domination think of anything. That's insider trading or fantasy football or Pepsi vs. Coke; intrafaith debates about BC are interesting on a spectator level, but mean exactly buggerall in terms of my own life, at least how I would choose to live it if I weren't dependent on the existence of a certain level of economic justice. Economic justice means at least the potential of something resembling a vaguely level playing field...or at least one with gently rolling hills, not Death Valley vs. Annapurna.

You won't get that in a world where wealthy and powerful people are using "freedom of religion" as a rallying cry to defend their right to refuse to "comfort the sick" whom they deem unworthy.

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

WORD to this.