Contraception

And real Medicine.

Today Bishop Lori and others testified about the reach of the HHS contraception mandate on hospitals.
If one assumes that mandates are at all constitutional- not a given, still an open question but lets assume they are. The good Bishop might agree that if insurance is being foisted on employers that the coverage should include treatment for female plumbing issues, especially life threatening ones like uterine cancer or uterine or ovarian cysts that can lead to uterine cancer. Do we have any disagreement on that? If there were some drug that cured uterine or ovarian cysts outside of surgery which were much less expensive than surgical removal then we would want that part of the coverage-right? Sometimes these cysts are so painful it is difficult to do a job with them-they have to be taken care of, for the productivity of the employee if nothing else. So you want them treated for that and cured-right?
Well it turns out that uterine cysts are not that uncommon. They affect a significant portion of the population. It also turns out that they can be reduced and prevented by what is commonly used also as contraceptives.
Hmmmmm. A moral dilemna. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/ovarian_cysts/article_em.htm



Today on the hill a Georgetown Law student who wanted to tell a story about how a friend had one such situation that could not get treated because she could not afford the medication, e.g. contraception, and so lost her overy and became infertile as a direct consequence of being too poor to buy the medicine.

They excluded her testimony. Perhaps they were right, she is not an expert and the story is anecdotal. There should have been a real Doctor Gynocologist to explain to the all male panel that this is a legitimate prescribed use of this- that it prevents surgeries and can even prevent hysterectomies if cysts are treated early.

So shouldn't there be a clear distinction in the Bishop's minds between
contraception (condoms are even acknowledged by the Pope as Aids prevention_)
and Abortofascient morning after pill type drugs. They don't need to be lumped together in terms of coverage. Pills that regulate cycles to reduce or prevent cysts could be allowed while abortofascients precluded.
Even if the definition of the exclusion is not expanded on establishment clause grounds, certainly a distinction can be made between contraception and abortofascients- right?

Or do the Bishops rather people just get uterine cancer and die? Surely they don't want the backlash of such an absurdist posture-do they?
The question should be less "where are all the women" and more "where are all the real doctors?" and why do we have an HHS secretary that is not an MD or Gynocologist but sleeping with Planned Parenthood instead?

There is a woman in the bible who bled for 12 years. She didn't know what to do and wasted ALL HER MONEY on doctors. Still she had a condition where she bled for 12 years. If only I can touch the hem of the garmet of Jesus I can be made well, she thought. And so she braved the crowd and against the rules of etiquette of the day, reached for the garment robe of Jesus and got close enough to grab the hem as he passed by. Instantly, she was made whole and well and her issue of blood ceased. Power went out of him, he felt. He wondered who that was who touched him. The woman could have had a bleeding uterine cyst. His power could have worked like a laser catherization that stopped the bleeding instantly. Now, thank God for science we have developed medicines with the wisdom and guidance of God, to cure such conditions non invasively. Lets hope the Bishops can sense the power release from them also to cure such women.