Contraception fosters opposing views

There are three words that I seldom utter but I am prepared to write today: I was wrong. I was wrong when I took to these pages a few weeks ago and protested the Obama administration's directive that religiously affiliated employers cover contraceptives in their employee's healthcare plans ("HHS order violates nation's right to freedom of religion," 02.09.12). But in the process of changing my position my eyes were opened to something that hits at the heart of who we should be as students preparing to enter the broader world.

There were three factors that caused me to shift my position on Obama's mandate. First I became aware that DePaul University, the largest Catholic education institution in the country, already offers contraceptive coverage. So if the Catholic hierarchy felt so strongly about the issue why, then, do they allow their flagship education institution to cover contraception? This suggests that church leaders were just looking for a political fight. It has been well documented that the Conference of Catholic Bishops has been waiting to pick a fight with President Obama.

The second factor that contributed to my change was public opinion. According to a New York Times poll, 59 percent of all Americans support the federal mandate requiring religiously affiliated employers to cover contraceptives. More importantly, 57 percent of Catholic voters support the mandate while only 36 percent oppose it. Who knows better how actual Catholics would be affected by this proposal than actual Catholics?

The third factor that influenced my change was seeing and hearing the opposition. Many well-intentioned liberals understandably opposed the Obama mandate but most of the opposition was the conservative Catholic hierarchy that is intensely disconnected from the Catholic masses and the reality of modern life in general. Standing with them were Obama's Pavolovian conservative opponents. These people will find any reason to reflexively oppose anything and everything the administration does. Media personalities like the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, who breathlessly wrote that Obama had awakened a sleeping giant and would pay dearly in November, falls into this category. So too does MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, who claimed that Pennsylvania—a state the Republicans have not won on the presidential level since 1988—was now in play. Of course Pennsylvania is no more in play now than it was before, while Noonan's sleeping giant remains morbid or, more accurately, non-existent. People like Noonan, Scarborough and the Catholic bishops are parts of a conservative cabal that thinks they know what Americans are thinking and how they feel, but in reality are ignorant of what is occurring outside their detached orbit.

The contraception debate also shed light on how we debate issues on this campus. It still stuns me how vitriolic some people can be when they disagree with you. Disagreement on our campus is fine; in fact it should be welcomed. We should all have our opinions interrogated and critiqued, but in a respectful way that adheres to the truth. Jack Mullan '14 did just that last week with his eloquent column disagreeing with my original position ("Secular laws must trump reilgious beliefs Institutions must respect individual freedom," 02.16.12). The other column by Carson Robinson '12, however, chose another route ("Birth control ban case of violence against women," 02.16.12). First I was accused of hijacking "buzzwords associated with feminism, like safe space and marginalized" in order to use "them in defense of violence against women." Does the columnist truly believe that only feminists need a safe space from marginalization? Any group that experiences oppression can make use of those words. I argued last week and I argue now that there is a segment of the population here at Vassar—as evidenced by Robinson's screed—and elsewhere that attempts to marginalize those people who have genuine religious beliefs or other opinions that may sit outside the mainstream.

And though it may be hard for some on this campus to comprehend, feminists are not the only group who has to worry about oppression. Moreover, various opinions and experiences should be welcomed into our campus discussions and not be tarred with hyperbolic attacks. To accuse those who hold my original position of being in favor of violence against women is not only untrue but also inflammatory. Our goal should be to lift up the debate and discourse, not to tear each other down with foolish attacks that contribute nothing to the debate.

—Juan Thompson '13 is a political science major.