Birth Control, Uncovered

Maybe read about the health care coverage before enrolling?

So you accepted an invitation to attend a Catholic institution and then are shocked, shocked, to find that institution follows Catholic doctrine in its operations? So you believe it is right to force this religious institution to breach its basic beliefs so you can save some money? I'm not sure how you qualified to get into Georgetown - you don't sound very intelligent.

(I applaud your acting responsibly in using birth control. I think the Catholic church's doctrine opposing birth control is wrong. That is one of the reasons I am a lapsed Catholic, but your arguments still are pitifully naive.)

as a former hoya myself, i completely agree. i would have to stock up on birth control every time i went home for the holidays in order to avoid the issue. and forget about Plan B, which was only available at Planned Parenthood at the time. there was a girl who lived in Copley who had a supply of the morning after pill that she would give away to women in distress.

For medical reasons, Georgetown's health plan does cover birth control. All that a female student has to do is g to the student health center and explain the situation to receive a waiver

I know it might come as a shock, Georgetown is a Private Catholic University, not just a "tradition." You should be happy it is not like the Catholic University across town and doesn't allow pro-choice speakers. Like the other poster stated "read the fine print" you chose to go to this University, you get what you pay for.

Can't wait for tax payer dollars to pay for the convience of not having to walk to a free clinic

I suppose you also think the government should force Hindu schools to serve beef in their cafeterias and Islamic schools to provide co-ed housing.

If you'd bothered to check with an actual plan administrator on campus (instead of a United representative whose ignorant bias conveniently confirmed your own that this is a question of regressive "politics" instead of morality and group identity) you'd have learned that if there is actual medical need for these hormone therapies--as you claim to have--the plan does, in fact, cover your medication.

As the author of this article, I would like to respond to the "HoyaAlum&Dad" who argues that attending a Jesuit institution means that I have to abide by their religious beliefs about reproduction. I take no issue with the University's religious tradition, but it becomes a public health problem when the University tries to control my body to the detriment of women's health.

GWU has opened up their health insurance policy based on allegations of gender discrimination and it is my hope that GTU will soon follow suit... they are on the WRONG side of history here.

As for your claims about my intelligence, I wrote a cogent and well written article... that stands for itself.

What a hateful little school Georgetown is. I wonder why anyone who isn't a right-wing Christianist bothers going here.

In an attempt to be more accessible as an elite institution, Georgetown has admittedly lapsed on quite a few of its Catholic precepts. It has been debated to death. The bottom line is that if this University wants to be taken seriously as a Catholic, Jesuit university with something unique to offer, and not a "fifth-rate Ivy," then it is just these sort of distinctions that Georgetown should be making. The Catholic Church, does not support the use of birth control; the University should, in turn, uphold the Church's teaching. You do not have to use Georgetown's health insurance. Similarly, you do not have to expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy by engaging in what I will term adult extra-curriculars. Ultimately, however, the University is not dictating how you control your body. Only you can do that.
I also take umbrage with your use of the term "progressive." As Chesterton noted, the term progressive denotes the idea that we are moving towards some ideal. In the case of Georgetown University, my alma mater, that normative ideal is and always should be staunchly in line with the views of the Catholic Church. You may attend this hallowed place and pay for birth control out of pocket, or you may go elsewhere. That's a legitimate choice.

Meghan,

The school is in no way trying to control your body. You can do whatever you want, they are simply saying that they are not going to subsidize something they believe is morally reprehensible. Forget whether they are right or wrong, if they said that contraception was wrong and then paid for it, I would have serious questions about their beliefs.

The pill, if ineffective in preventing conception, can cause an abortion in the first few days after conception. The church believes abortion is murder. Would you ask the school to pay for a healthcare plan that allowed the murder of 1 month old babies if the mother couldn't handle taking care of it? Sounds ridiculous, but in the school and church's mind there is no difference in the situations. So again, you are asking them to completely ignore what they believe is right or wrong.

If there is a true medical reason, besides allowing you to have more sex, it sounds like the plan does cover that - and that is another issue.

I respect the school for this decision, and would be upset if they changed this policy.

As a graduate student myself (albeit at another Jesuit school - Georgetown is my alma mater), I sympathize with your financial situation, and as someone who also takes birth control for medical reasons and not for contraceptive reasons, I sympathize on that count, too.

I do find it troubling that you a) applied for a $2000 health care plan without checking whether it would cover the medication you need to take on a daily basis and b) that you wrote an op-ed for the school's paper before bothering to check with Georgetown about whether they cover birth control (because, as several students have noted, the plan will cover birth control in cases of medical necessity).

The situation is also a little more complicated than you may realize. Conscience protections allow religious institutions to refuse to provide abortions or birth control on moral grounds, so it is highly unlikely that a lawsuit similar to that at GWU would be successful.

Finally, I'd like to reiterate the point that refusing to subsidize your sexual activities is not the same as attempting to control your body. Georgetown is not prohibiting the use of birth control, or sexual activity, but simply not paying for it. There is a vast difference between actively attempting to prevent an action and simply not helping that action along. I suppose its a good thing you aren't getting your degree in philosophy...

...or a degree in theology, goverment, a health related field, and business because you can't read a contract.

Georgetown is not a major university with the minor annoyance of Catholicism; it is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit university in the country. In choosing graduate programs, you should have considered this identity just as much as you did course requirements, financial aid, and professors. As a non-Catholic, I know that I certainly did. And as an institution that is clearly religious (five chapels on campus as well as eighty or so priests living in residence in the middle of campus, the words "Ad maiorem Dei glorium" written across their residence), Georgetown can hardly be expected to violate the principles of its religion. The hospital does not perform abortions and no store on campus may sell artificial birth control, nor does the university-provided health insurance cover artificial birth control for birth-controlling purpose. This isn't Georgetown controlling your life or body at all; you will not be penalized in any way by the university for choosing to have an abortion or pre-marital sex using artificial birth control--but the university will not pay for such things. Such is its right as a private institution. If you cannot accept Georgetown's religious identity--which you absolutely have a right to do--you should have chosen another university.

BTW, I'm going to echo others--you signed up for an insurance policy without reading it and learning what it covers and what it doesn't? Not all policies cover prescription drugs, and they all have different ways of doing so, so even if you'd been hoping to have your antibiotics covered instead of your BC pills, you should have checked the policy. For your sake I hope you pay better attention to other contracts you sign.

"As the author of this article, I would like to respond to the "HoyaAlum&Dad" who argues that attending a Jesuit institution means that I have to abide by their religious beliefs about reproduction. I take no issue with the University's religious tradition, but it becomes a public health problem when the University tries to control my body to the detriment of women's health."

Sorry, but you are still not demonstrating the intelligent reasoning that is to be expected of someone at Georgetown.

Several other readers have already pointed out your weak arguments and incorrect, poorly researched information. I will simply point out again - there is no attempt by anyone to "control your body". If you want to buy and use any kind of birth control, there's no one at Georgetown who is coming to inspect your dorm or bed to stop you. You do not have to "abide by their religious beliefs". (Hell, that was true 30 years ago too - back then there was plenty of use of birth control in the dorms.) True, you may have to buy it somewhere else, but that's hardly controlling your body.

You should take two lessons from writing this article: (1) have someone else read your article critically before publishing and (2) read your insurance policies (and other contracts) before purchasing/signing them. You're a grown-up now - act like it.

The responses thus far echo, I believe, a small minority of the sentiments of women on this campus. Every female student I have spoken to has offered their support and thanks for this article and bringing to light the challenges we face in getting the health services that we need.

United clearly misinformed me about the possibility of attaining a waver for my condition, but this concession is a distraction from the larger point which is that the University's religious "tradition" jeopardizes women's health. A few more examples...

1) The University plan does NOT cover the HPV vaccine which protects against cervical cancer. It is absolutely absurd that students cannot benefit from a drug which our very own Dr. Richard Schlegel developed after decades of research! The University might consider any wavering in their contraceptive policy a slippery slope, but the reality is that they are jeopardizing the health of our community with their draconian regulations.

2) My cousin graduated from Georgetown Medical school and had to lobby the University to include the breast exam as part of student's training! Even though we have one of the most prestigious cancer center's in the country, before my cousin's intervention, medical students were not taught how to diagnose breast cancer which kills thousands of women in this country every year.

The University is on the WRONG side of history here...They may have their religious beliefs, but they should not be imposed on the University community!!! It is my belief that female students and faculty will eventually win the right to control their own bodies and advocate for our healthcare needs.

I think Meghan makes an excllent point. I support her 100%. I admire you writing and sticking up for women's rights! THANK YOU!

I think Meg's article is very well written and I completely agree with her point of view! I'm glad her article sparked this discussion.

Given that it is a Catholic University, however, I think they are entitled demonstrate their belief on birth control. I would be just as frustrated as you are though Meg. I wish the Church would evolve, so to speak, on this topic but I don't think they will. In the meantime you'll get a great education and meet great people. I think you'll have to take the good with the bad on this topic but again I'm glad we're all talking about this!

On a separate topic I am in the health care industry and I can't decode my own health insurance contract! I believe that government should regulate the contract wording so that all Insurance contracts are standardized in a table format so that customers can compare apples to apples. Credit card companies are required to do this with their interest rates. Your cereal box has a standardized nutritional label. Insurance companies make their living out of hiding sneaky wording into their policies. Almost anyone who has tried to navigate the system has been duped by their health insurance company before. My wife's plan wouldn't cover her prenatal ultrasound! It's far too easy to tell Meg she should have read her contract first. It is nearly impossible to make sense out of those documents and the salespeople are usually paid on commission and they can tell you anything to get you to sign. I think government intervention here would benefit everybody except the insurance companies for whom I have absolutely no sympathy. They scam hard working American people every day using fear tactics and tricky wording.

First off, let's briefly go through a discussion of rights. As a master's student in government, democracy, and governance, surely you could tell me about the difference between positive and negative rights. In case you've forgotten though, I'll clarify the situation for you. You are absolutely, one-hundred percent within reason in claiming your negative right to take birth control free of state interference. No government should make it illegal for you to take birth control. However, this is not the 'right' you seem to be invoking here. You demand a positive right - that is, one that requires action as opposed to non interference of others - to have your birth control medicine paid for by an insurance plan. Such a right does not exist, and though it may be standard among some college or employment insurance plans to cover birth control pills, it is not, nor should it ever be, required. An insurer refusing to cover your cost of birth control medication is not violating your right to choose birth control without interference.

Now let us look at another major flaw in your argument. You say, "the university may have a Jesuit tradition, but that does not give its officials the right to impose that tradition on its students." This is simply not true. Georgetown is a Jesuit university, first and foremost. As such, it is perfectly understandable that Georgetown would keep in its practice the Catholic tradition of opposition to birth control. The university chooses not to offer access to abortion or contraception on campus nor to fund, through health insurance, the purchase of birth control pills, as that would endorse a violation of its principles. Georgetown is really not imposing anything upon you. Sure, it makes the cost of safe sex higher by making students pay for BC pills or walk farther distances to buy condoms, but never are the rights to employ such practices actively hindered by the university. Either way, Georgetown is a private institution, with no state funding or state participation. If it wanted to fine, suspend, or expel a student for using birth control (as draconian and unreasonable as that may be), it would be completely within its rights. Schools like West Point have a military tradition, are they also unjustified in 'imposing' this tradition on people who chose to enroll there?

I am NOT going to give any credence to "HoyaAlumandDad" by responding to his incendiary attacks on my intelligence. Instead, I will encourage this father to consider what it is like for women- maybe even his daughter- to struggle for their reproductive rights.

How would you feel if your daughter went to your alma mata and got pregnant because she couldn't afford birth control which is NOT covered by insurance? How would you feel if your daughter contracted HPV becuase the University doesn't pay for the immunizations that were developed on these very grounds?

This discussion has real life consequences for women and the community at large. Try and consider,"HoyaAlumandDad" our position!

Ms. Stringer,

Calm down, take a deep breath. None of the posts have been "incendiary" because they don't appear to be inciting riots or treason.

You wrote an op-ed in an open forum with a message board. There have been a number of well reasoned responses that disagree with your position and question the basis for your statements. You were the first to "call out" one of these responses by name, they responded in kind.

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Just because your article has sprung more leaks than the Iraqi Navy isn't a reason to start writing in all capitals.

You really don't make a convincing case when you whine about how "the University's religious "tradition" jeopardizes women's health." Get over it. It's the specific policy of one school that is outspokenly Catholic, not some huge nation-wide encroachment upon women's sexual rights. Anyone with a strong stance on issues that typically butt heads with Catholic orthodoxy (LGBT, Abortion, Sex/Contraception) should educate themselves on Georgetown policies before agreeing to attend the university.

Meg --

I think everyone is considering your position("!"). Its just that you dont seem to acknowledge theirs. You unfairly accuse the university of coersion and denying you a right to your bodily autonomy. In reality it does no such thing. In fact, it is YOU who are trying to force your opinion on the university.

I think all the posters would agree that you have every right to contraception. Most, if not all, would highly recommend it, especially most pro-life people.

What they are uncomfortable with is your feeling of entitlement and utter disregard for the fact that the university's policy refects its institutional beliefs. Why are your belief's so much more important than the University's?

I dont think your last post will win many over. "How would you feel . . ." just doesnt get allot of traction in these types of arguments.

Try this, -- how would you feel if your daughter got hit by a car bacause President DeGioia didnt walk you across the street.

No one would argue that a young woman being hit by a car is a tragey, they just feel that the onus of preventing it is on the woman, not the university.

Consider this, hundreds of millions of women across the country use contraception. I wonder how they do so without Georgetown University's assistance?

Anyway, either you get my point or you dont. I hope you end up enjoying Georgetown despite your disagreement with one of its policies.

Saxon Gillis

Maybe instead of trying to impose your philosophy or Religious points of view, we could ALL step back and look at the BIG picture here! For centuries women's health care has been on the back burner or not even on the stove, so to speak. Whether or not you believe in birth control or think your better then some people because of where you may have gotten your diploma, as women we need to speak up where there may be injustice or inequality, I honor this woman for having the courage to speak up to all of you and others who wish to sit back and let decisions be made for us!!! Gloria Steineim and many other women who made even being allowed to attend a University possible would be proud!!

I'm a fellow grad student in Meghan's department, though I don't think that we've ever met. I was quite appalled to learn about the lack of coverage for contraception in the Georgetown health plan. Leaving my personal normative commitments aside however, I'd like to point out a few things that seem to have been overlooked in both the article and the subsequent discussion here. First, while Georgetown is a Jesuit institution, Boston College (another Jesuit university) DOES cover contraception, as do at least 3 other Catholic universities in the United States. (Citation here: http://www.lifenews.com/state4490.html) Second, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has recently found that an almost identical attempt by Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic fine arts college in North Carolina, to restrict coverage of contraception from its employees was a violation of the "disparate impact" clause of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The logic is that since only women make use of prescription birth control, they are "disparately impacted" by these restrictions vis-a-vis men. (Citation here: http://www.becketfund.org/files/d6995.pdf) I understand that many conservatives object to this clause of the Civil Rights Act, but the intent of Congress on this matter is nonetheless clear and it has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court. While Meghan is an MA student and thus not employed by the University, many PhD students are, as Teaching and Research Assistants. As a result, I see no reason why Georgetown wouldn't be subject to the same finding by the EEOC as Belmont Abbey College. Third, given that Washington, DC is one of the most expensive health insurance markets in the country (and consequently, the world) due to its small size and urban location, it is for all intents and purposes impossible for Meghan or any other grad student (who would typically no longer be eligible, unlike most undergrads, to be covered under their parents' health insurance) to purchase another insurance plan. Since the University (as is standard practice) requires all full-time students to have health insurance, the University's health plan is essentially the only game in town.

Continuing on the last post: I'd also like to point out to hoya_reader that while he is generally correct that no one's negative liberties have been trampled on here (aside from the foundational liberal right to equality under the law - this would be Title VII), most modern liberals (NB: "small-l liberals") whether political theorists or ordinary citizens have some sense that positive liberties are important. Aside from the autistic 12 year olds that venerate Ayn Rand, most of us have some notion that as the most successful society the world has ever witnessed, we owe something more to our fellow citizens than negative liberties. If you'd like to argue for the complete dismantling of the welfare state, that's fine, but that would put you pretty far out of the modern philosophical and political mainstream. As a final aside, Georgetown may be a private institution, but the idea that it receives no federal funding is ludicrous. While I hesitate to call Georgetown a "research university", it certainly does receive substantial amounts of federal research funding every year. Thus, it's simply not true that "If [Georgetown] wanted to fine, suspend, or expel a student for using birth control (as draconian and unreasonable as that may be), it would be completely within its rights." Well it could be true if the University wanted to completely turn its back on serious scholarship and become a sort of Catholic Bob Jones University. Perhaps that would mollify some of the posters here, but I doubt that many current or former students would find that a particularly attractive prospect.

Meghan, I will try to make this simple for you. You claim you have a “right” that requires Georgetown to supply insurance that covers your birth control pills. Please answer in detail the following:

(1) What is the source of these rights that require a private institution to offer you any insurance at all?

(2) What is the source of these rights that require a private institution to provide you with insurance that covers any particular drug or procedure?

(3) How does the fact that this private institution refuses to provide coverage for birth control, stop you from obtaining any birth control you want and using your body in any fashion you desire?

(4) If you have the right to force a Catholic institution to supply insurance covering birth control pills, do you also have the right to force it to supply insurance covering abortions?

(5) Why do you have a right to force this institution (and its members) to violate their religious beliefs?

Look Meghan, you screwed up and bought a policy that does not cover what you want it to cover. Tough. You have the right to buy a policy from some other company that covers it or you can pay out of your own pocket for the prescriptions you want. You do not have the right to force a private religious institution to provide you with anything except to the extent it voluntarily enters into a contract to do so.

As noted in a previous post, I support birth control; I believe the Catholic Church has taken the wrong path on the issue, but I strongly support a private institution’s, and its members’, right to not do something that violates their beliefs. Finally, I make sure my daughter’s insurance covers what she needs; if I’m in doubt about what is covered I ask and get it in writing; if she needs something that is not covered, including birth control, I pay for it. I’m teaching her to do the same when she is an adult.

@ govphd:
I do support a gradual / eventual dismantling of the welfare state. However, I do NOT venerate Ayn Rand, and actually disagree with her on many aspects of her "comprehensive" philosophy, nor am I a twelve-year-old autistic. To give a government PhD like yourself a good point of reference, my views are generally in line with those of the Cato Institute.
Either way, that's neither here nor there. I will concede to you that Georgetown receives federal funding. I admit to a certain level of ignorance when it comes to specifics of Georgetown and / or national policy, thus I'm definitely arguing someone far superior in debate leverage and (most likely) intellect. My point was not at all that Georgetown should impose harsh restrictions on students who use birth control / contraception. Georgetown knows that, to be taken seriously as legitimate academic institution, it cannot impose such a draconian form of Catholic morality. However, Georgetown's policy is informed by its Catholic tradition, and this takes place in general agreement with its standing as a premier university. In other words, there is no contradiction right now between its Catholic character / current policies and its academic prestige. My posts served solely to illuminate that Georgetown is not attacking women's health rights by refusing to offer birth control.

GOVPHD Many thanks for your support and the encouraging evidence you provided on other catholic schools policies on birth control... I am writing a follow-up op-ed for next week and intend to incorporate these examples into my writing.

I also appreciate you clarifying the fact that Georgetown DOES, in fact, receive federal funding contrary to what some readers suggested.

One of the most fundamental points that you touched on is the fact that the administration requires us to purchase health insurance, but we are essentially boxed in to buying the GU Primer Plan since any other plan is prohibitively expensive.

Even though we are the consumers, we have no control over what is or is not included in our coverage. The university has no business controlling our health-care, their job is to teach.

Regardless of some of the readers disheartening tone, I am happy to participate in this dialogue. I know that conversations have begun outside of this site which will hopefully yield the changes we seek.

I'm going to side with govphd not just because we are in the same program but because in this case he's the only person who's presented the legal side of the argument. Stringer's article was a heartfelt cri de couer, but in the absence of any compelling legal argument I'd have sided with those who are arguing that GU, as a Catholic school, has a right to make such decisions.

(That is not the same thing as what many more posters on this thread have argued, which is that it is proper and prudential to do so. That most of those posting here can't understand that the GU insurance--which is, in effect, MANDATORY for graduate students, since we're not on our parents' plans and can't afford other plans--is, indeed, trying to restrict students' options, and thus control behavior, is testament to the strength of their faith, to be charitable.)

This is part of a larger debate, however. Why is it that GU's Catholic identity must extend to Catholic practices? And what is the benefit of that identity? Why is it that graduate students, who choose educational facilities based on excellence (among other factors), must also be presumed to have signed on for a host of other characteristics? And if that is the case, than GU's stay at the top of the league tables in (certain) academic disciplines will be all the shorter, as most top-ranked scholars and students will choose to locate to other schools.

In response to HoyaAlum&Dad, I think the bigger picture you are missing is that although Georgetown is a private institution, they have a monopoly on our healthcare!

There are no other providers that can offer a roughly $2,000 a year insurance plan and, as you know, the University has mandated that we be insured. Look at the big picture here.

In regards to the issue of contracts, as reader "Matt" noted, negotiating the morass of health insurance policies is no easy feat. This experience has certainly taught me an important lesson in reading the fine print though... I will give you that. I am advocating for this cause so that other women do not have to go through this, in my view, absurd experience.

Thank you HoyaAlum&Dad for your comments.

How about the fact that the university is doing us all a favor by providing ridiculously subsidized health insurance? I doubt the cost differential between GU and private insurance is made up by your out-of-pocket birth control costs. Yes, it's a mandatory charge because the university doesn't want a sick student to be left without care -- so it insists that we all pool risk. Be grateful that the university cares about your welfare enough to provide this plan, even if it doesn't meet your exact preferences. If for some reason you need to be hospitalized, $2000 is little to ask for some of the best care the world has to offer.

Catholic 'tradition' and 'identity' are meaningless unless Catholic values continue to shape institutional practices. The 'tradition' would become little more than an historical artifact. The university, acting in accordance with Catholic teaching, thinks it is doing what is best for your welfare by not providing for cheap and easy birth control. You may disagree, but to characterize this as a mere power play against your 'rights' reduces the issue to platitudes that don't further the discussion. I know this point will raise more controversy, but it is worth considering. What if there are people in the risk pool who consider abortion or birth control to be moral evils? Why should they subsidize your 'choice'?

Finally, the idea that the university cannot do world-class research because it doesn't provide The Pill to students seems ludicrous. This practice does not restrict one's free exercise of any set of values, secular or otherwise. In a way, it's more tolerant, because it recognizes that 'choice' is not one-sided, always in favor of some supposedly neutral secular position. All universities are communities that adopt certain identities and sets of values; GU is unique in being a top of the 'league tables' university that does not fully embrace a secular identity, scrubbed clean of any religious values. This unique identity should be celebrated, not seen as a handicap or liability.

"That most of those posting here can't understand that the GU insurance...is, indeed, trying to restrict students' options, and thus control behavior, is testament to the strength of their faith, to be charitable."

This is just silly. Expensive and health- and ecology-damaging BP pills are far from the only (or best) form of contraception available to women, despite what the many millions of dollars of advertising bought by their corporate makers trying to convince us all otherwise might say. Issues of the right of a community to particularity aside, not paying for BP pills can in no way be construed as a denial of access to contraception or a means of controlling sexual behavior so long as condoms (to take one of many examples) cost as little as a quarter a piece and are so universally available.

"This is part of a larger debate, however. Why is it that GU's Catholic identity must extend to Catholic practices? And what is the benefit of that identity? Why is it that graduate students, who choose educational facilities based on excellence (among other factors), must also be presumed to have signed on for a host of other characteristics?"

You mean characteristics such as, say, a commitment to open inquiry and intellectual freedom, mutual tolerance and respect, not promoting hate or bias, not allowing sexual discrimination or harassment, etc.? All communities define themselves and make certain demands on those in their midst. Don't like a particular expectation? Rebel, make your peace with it, or leave. But don't frame your protest as silly whining about all convention. No one will take you seriously.

Dear cri me a river, you keep missing the point here. I suggest that you think a bit more before posting your thoughts.

Here it's not about what you or your Sunday afternoon friends think is a good, environmental friendly contraceptive, or the BEST (!) contraceptive. No. Here is about freedom to chose the contraceptive that you (i.e. smart student admitted at GU, agnostic like a tree) want, your doctor prescribed or you simply find better than others!

Second, saying that a student like Meghan has the choice to sign on another insurance policy is saying nothing. A student with some 60000 dollar loan would never spend 3 or 4000 dollars more just to have b-control covered. In other words, a student like Meghan does not have a real choice.

Third, so what? Should Meghan go to planned parenthood? Should she jam up waiting rooms and in the long run prevent other people from benefiting from that service? You don't really think that's smart.

Also, if a student like Meghan has no real choice, can we really say that GU is treating her the same way it treats catholic students? Does GU satisfy catholic and non-catholic students' needs the same way? The answer is clearly no. Is this acceptable? I don't think so. The money that GU gets from taxpayers has no religious belief, I believe.

So, wouldn't be more honest to clearly explain the extent of GU's religious belief at the time of the application? Or better, make the catholic belief a requisite for admission? Maybe that would be seen as religious discrimination.

Rob

Thanks Rob for your comments.

UMD, as of this fall, forces you to either buy your own health care plan, or buy one from the school. and who cares if it covers birth control pills, cause they are free from planned parenthood offices all over the place. just wait for obama-care to set in. Public option will have the efficiency of the post office and the compassion of the IRS. Enjoy

Rob,
Emotive mockery can be an effective rhetorical strategy in certain circles. It's not necessarily one to be proud of, however. I haven't missed the point. I just don't share or accept the assumptions Ms. Stringer holds or the rather weak arguments she has made.

Last thoughts:

1. GovPhD: The EEOC is a liberal leaning agency that pushes a liberal agenda. How far it pushes its agenda is determined by whether it is operating under a Republican or Democratic President. Given that, any decision by the EEOC needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The EEOC initially told Belmont Abbey it could not determine that the failure to provide contraceptives was discriminatory. Under Obama the EEOC changed its position and suddenly decided that the failure to provide contraceptive coverage was discriminatory under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. However, this EEOC decision runs counter to the only Federal court decision on the topic, Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad. Standridge held to the contrary - that failure to provide contraception coverage is not discriminatory. Further, that case did not even involve the religious rights that the current case does.

2. "Aside from the autistic 12 year olds that venerate Ayn Rand, most of us have some notion that as the most successful society the world has ever witnessed, we owe something more to our fellow citizens than negative liberties." This is a troubling concept in the legal world. What exactly do we "owe" to fellow citizens? Just US citizens or all the world? How is that determined? To start imposing legal duties without some basis is a very slippery slope. There's a reason the law does not generally recognize a duty to act. If you are talking about moral (not legal) duties, perhaps you are really following St. Francis Xavier's teachings of being "a man for others" (and if any of you at Georgetown don't recognize who that is and what that phrase stands for, you need to learn.) The problem with many government oriented people such as GovPhD is that they insist on using the government to impose obligations that are really moral, not legal, duties. At one time, religious and civic training would inculcate these moral obligations in everyone. A large part of our society, to its detriment, left this path more than a generation ago.

3. Yes, other Catholic institutions have provided contraceptive coverage. Not clear what their religious reasoning was, but many institutions caved because the cost of fighting it was significantly higher than not. For non-religious institutions, providing contraception is probably cost effective as the coverage of a resulting pregnancy is higher.

4. No, the fact that you would have to pay more money to obtain coverage from some other insurer still is not controlling your body or restricting its use. A part time job will cover the cost. Going to another university would allow you to buy into their policy. You chose Georgetown, a Catholic institution. The bigger picture is that you are trying to force a religious institution, and its members, to violate a basic belief just so you can save some money.

Meg's constant interjections, whines, and protests demonstrate that she is a true feminist: act like a tart, then a victim.

Professionals wouldn't condescend to "re-defend" their position.

Also, people pointing out that more comprehensive plans would cost $3-4k more, and thus Megan can't choose to take them: B.S. If that $3-4k was required to cover cancer treatments, she would find the money. The fact is, BC pills are *not important enough* to Megan. She wants them, but not if she has to pay for them. Thus, it comes across as whining. She could leave her graduate program, get a real job, and then have health insurance through that. Megan could look through her budget, and all the money she spends on booze, clothes, nicer-than-necessary cell phone plan, etc., cut back on the non-essentials, and pay the $89/month for BC. So many choices, and surprisingly, none of them involve sticking a fork in a babies head!

By the way, the idea that a woman is victimized by her pregnancy, that would have been prevented if only Georgetown hadn't thwarted her efforts to get the pill, is completely ludicrous. So a woman who doesn't get the pill is going to continue to fornicate, and then the results are Georgetown's fault? Who is the one fornicating?

Pregnancy is a sign that something went right, not that something is broken. Treating your body like a masturbatory tool for your random hook ups is a clear sign that the only thing broken is your dignity.

Now quick, start whining about how nobody understands your position and how you won't stop whining until you get your way! Down with the rights of others! Down with irritating religions! Down with those who disagree with the Militant Feminazis! We're doing this for your own good! (and so we can sleep with men with whom we don't want to have children....)

Quick Recap: Gtown does cover the birth control or hormone drugs if you have a medical necessity. Leaving only a single and expensive option for contraception up to the insuree to pay out of pocket for around $100 a month. Just because they don't cover your Yaz, doesn't stop you from buying condoms or sponges or pulling out.(I would recommend the condom thing, you probably want to buy those considering the pill won't stop you from getting the clap) Also, you don't have to worry about the whole other medication/taking it every day at the same time etc. So the argument boils down to "I don't want to have to pay for contraception, because if I paid for regular health insurance and no student loans it would be included" is kind of weak.

I think the University should cover plastic surgery, otherwise the women's right to an ample busom is being denied!

Hoya-alum: "You may attend this hallowed place and pay for birth control out of pocket, or you may go elsewhere."

Hoya Alum & Dad: "you are still not demonstrating the intelligent reasoning that is to be expected of someone at Georgetown."

I am a current student at Georgetown and the responses to this article are exactly the reasons for why I have become disenchanted with GU. Everyone here thinks that they are God's gift to mankind, and that all other people are below them.

I came to this school because I wanted a proper education and because I wanted to be around people that were going to address the important problems of the future. Unfortunately, most students here are driven to be pretentious snobs that try to build themselves up in their minds. No wonder this school attracts all the fake people who think they are going to be president one day. People here like to politic and gain "power" as if to prepare for when that day comes.

And forget about solving the issues of our time. Most GU students don't have the capacity to think creatively. People here desire positions of status, they don't desire to have imaginations, or to use them. There are a lot of overacheivers at this school, but not a lot of intellectuals.

Most GU students are fearful, afraid to go outside of their comfort zones. They desire stability and are willing to settle at the first opportunity they have to get it. They want the safe, white-collar office job. Whereas students at MIT are designing the next advanced car battery that will change the way people drive cars and use energy all accross the world, Georgetown students are designing their networking models, just so they can get that safe, cushy, boring job. Most will become middle managers, never really contributing to society.

This arrogance, and this like-it-or-leave-it mentality that students have here stifles creativity. There are no real visionaries with passion here. Just empty politicals.

An education is supposed to teach people to absorb ideas that they don't agree with and to discuss them without becoming personal. For some of the people that have posted on this page, they must have missed that.

Ms. Stringer is bringing up and issue that is important to many women on campus, and discussing the problems that this policy creates for people. How about we discuss this like adults without attacking her? People here need to stop belittling each other. It's one of the most popular things to do on campus.

As Georgetown students, we are Hoyas. I that meant something.

This thread is filled with too many catholics who enjoy the idea of celestial dictatorship.

Meg - I agree with you 100%

I use my parents' health insurance plan, not Georgetown's, but I too have encountered challenges in accessing the health care I need due to Georgetown's health care policies. I went to the Student Health Center with what seemed to me a significant medical issue, and after asking questions, my doctor seemed to decide that the reason I was here claiming to have a medical issue was because I wanted an under the table birth control prescription. After I answered negatively to her questions about sexual activity, she asked if I had a boyfriend or had other immediate plans for sexual activity. She prescribed me necessary medication with a wink and a nudge, saying Georgetown isn't allowed to prescribe hormone pills unless it's for a legitimate medical cause, which she seemed to not believe I had, but she prescribed it anyway.
My issue isn't with Georgetown's Catholic tradition or the many ways that affects student life at Georgetown (no one is complaining about crucifixes in classrooms, after all). My problem is that they're advocating that Catholic tradition in their health policy on one hand, and on the other prescribing medication that they believe is for the purpose of birth control while fudging my medical records to reflect a condition my doctor doesn't seem to believe I have. Georgetown's health services seem to know the importance of birth control, and in my opinion Georgetown needs to amend its policies to reflect the reality on the ground, in its clinics and insurance.

disappointedhoya,
You might consider rereading your post then looking up the definition of the words "hypocrite" and "irony".

Disappointedhoya- couldn't agree more.

and... to cry me a river- I think you proved disappointedhoya's point.

Georgetown's insurance will grant birth control prescriptions based on what the school deems to be "medical" need. Georgetown will deny some students their doctor-prescribed and doctor-recommended medication if the school deems it is not necessary for "medical" purposes, i.e. contraception.

Therefore, the school's objection isn't to birth control itself; their objection is to the sexual practices of certain students. As a private institution, Georgetown may be legally allowed to do this. However, we shouldn't pretend that it's anything but religious discrimination - which, incidentally, Georgetown professes to be against.

NEWSFLASH: hypocrisy at a religious institution!

Thanks for the article, Meghan!

To the disappointed Hoya,
I understand your frustrations. I met many people at Georgetown like the ones you are describing. Here is what I will say in response to your post: the love-it-or leave mentality is not really what I was expressing. It was more a bit of exasperation that someone could come to Georgetown, a place I learned to love for, among other things, it's Catholic identity, and then be shocked and appalled that the U would support Catholic doctrine in every way possible. That's all. I apologize for my lack of vision, and I'll be sure to check on my presidential bid from Afghanistan, where my brethren and I will be securing the rights to conversations such as these.

Meghan, what a surprise that Georgetown occasionally practices what it preaches.

Anyone who uses birth control is in a state of mortal sin and will find themselves damned if they die in such a state.

How does this nonsense even get published in a newspaper that is supposed to be a Catholic school.

I think one of the larger issues at hand here is transparency in the University sponsored health insurance.

If it were more clear what the policy did and did not cover (birth control among others), then students would never be surprised at the pharmacist.

Yes, we can say it is naive to buy insurance without reading the fine print, but let's play consumer for a moment and demand some clarity. Should students be aware of what their policies are? Absolutely. Should the University/UnitedHealthcare attempt to make that easier? From all sides, I would say they should.