A Father Tries to Deny His Daughters Birth Control Coverage
I first saw this story linked to at Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook group a few days ago.
I take it they posted it because they are startled, sickened, and upset that this father is trying to limit his daughter’s access to birth control. I suppose that is an understandable reaction.
My issue with this hinges on something else – not that I’m necessarily fine with a father micromanaging the choices of his 18 year old daugther.
First here is the link with a few excerpts, and then my thoughts below (unfortunately, this was written by A. Marcotte who is sometimes correct on some topics but at times (Link): horribly wrong on other topics):
(Link): Inspired by Hobby Lobby, a Father Tries to Deny His Daughters Birth Control Coverage by A. Marcotte
- Missouri Republican state Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland does not want his three daughters to have access to birth control, in their case through the group plan offered by Wieland’s employer, the state of Missouri.
- The plan does not require women to use birth control, of course, but the mere fact that his daughters might disobey his anti–birth control teachings bothers Wieland.
- A judge asked why Wieland doesn’t just tell his daughters, “We expect you do abide by our religious tenets.” Wieland’s lawyer, Timothy Belz, replied, “Well, we all have high hopes for our kids, that is true. We all expect and want them to obey us, they don’t always … ”
- Thus Wieland would like a little help from the government just in case his girls disobey Daddy’s religious beliefs.
I may be wrong about this, but I’m pretty sure I read elsewhere that one of his daughters is 18 years old, one is about 17, and he has one who is about 13.
Considering that age 18 is considered by a lot of Americans to be the legal age of adulthood – a time when, in most states, you can drive or drink alcohol – it does not seem right to me that a father would seek to control his daughter at that age.
At some point, you need to allow your adult children to make their own choices in life, even if that means they choose to go against your personal convictions.
Putting those points aside, here is the part I wanted to focus upon:
- A judge asked why Wieland doesn’t just tell his daughters, “We expect you do abide by our religious tenets.”
- Wieland’s lawyer, Timothy Belz, replied, “Well, we all have high hopes for our kids, that is true. We all expect and want them to obey us, they don’t always … ” Thus Wieland would like a little help from the government just in case his girls disobey Daddy’s religious beliefs.
Good lord almighty. Why do you Christians bother teaching about virginity and celibacy, telling kids to hold on until marriage to have sex, since you don’t really EXPECT anyone to live up to these ideals? Why?
Hey, why not stop teaching about other virtues too, such as honesty, since your kid may grow up to steal or lie too?
What in the hell is going on among conservative Christianity that its practitioners refuse to actually expect people to maintain self control?
I don’t have much more to say on this subject, since I’ve blogged on it before (please see links below under “related posts”). All I can do is sit here with my jaw on the floor, in shock and amazement.
By the by. Some women have to take BCPs (Birth Control Pills) for non-sexual reasons.
Yours truly, who is still a virgin over the age of 40 (because I was waiting until marriage to have sex but never found Mr Right), had to take BCPs when younger due to menstrual problems.
I was even on BCPs while I was engaged to my ex, but I made it clear to him there would be no hanky-panky just because I was on The Pill, and there was no hanky-panky.
It is quite possible for people to abstain from sex, and even when they have access to birth control.
I guess you don’t stand by your convictions or religious beliefs, since you think you or your children are incapable or unwilling to abide by them.
One of the arguments some conservatives are putting forward, as explained in the article below, is that pre-marital sex should have as many possible negative consequences as possible.
Sigh. If the ONLY reason you’re abstaining from pre-marital (especially if it’s regular, or casual, or with hundreds of different partners) sex is to avoid STDs (a.k.a. STIs), there is already something very amiss with your values in general and attitudes about sex in particular.
Why don’t my fellow conservatives create better arguments in favor of celibacy and staying a virgin until marriage, rather than relying on scare tactics?
Yes, I recognize that getting STDs is one possible outcome of pre-marital sex and probably should be mentioned in these discussions, but it seems very sad to base one’s primary argument against it on that basis alone or primarily.
I’m also curious about this guy’s reasoning.
I already know that most Christians assume that single women are big horn dogs, to the point that they think unmarried women will practically rip the pants off married men and rape them to get sex, but they also believe that the moment that woman gets married, she all the sudden loses an interest in sex, so that preachers find it necessary to guilt trip wives in their weekly sex sermons to remind them how much husbands like regular sex.
So, I wonder, does this Representative think his teen daughters have sex drives? Which I am sure that they do – but most Christians and Non-Christians do not feel comfortable acknowledging that women get randy too. Or does this doofus think that his daughters may reluctantly cave in to sex for a sweet talking boyfriend they eventually get?
More coverage of the story (by the way, I am right wing, although some of the sources I am linking to here are left wing – I also have a few concluding comments to make below these links / excerpts):
- JUL 21, 2015
- Missouri state Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland (R) does not want his daughters’ health plan to cover birth control — even though two of those daughters are adults.
- So he and his wife sued the Obama administration.
- Though this lawsuit was rejected on jurisdictional grounds by a federal trial court, a panel of three appellate judges reinstated the suit on Monday.
- Should the Wielands ultimately prevail in their effort to deny birth control coverage to their daughters, the decision could have implications far beyond the Wieland family, potentially forcing insurance companies to maintain elaborate records to track many of their customers’ views on religion and sexual morality.
- …As ThinkProgress previously explained, “[w]hen a vaccine became available for a common sexually transmitted disease . . . many people raised a religious objection to the vaccine on the grounds that it would reduce the potential consequences of sex and thus lead to greater promiscuity. So some parents could object to having to pay for insurance that covers this vaccine. Or they may object to paying for coverage for STD treatments generally, on the theory that the potential consequences of sex are even greater if a person who becomes infected with an STD must pay the full out of pocket costs for medical care or else go untreated.”
- One Missouri lawmaker has taken the fight against birth control coverage to a new and very personal place: His own daughters, two of whom are adults.
- State Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland and his wife Teresa are suing the Obama administration over its minimum coverage requirements for health plans under the Affordable Care Act, which includes contraception. They say the government is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs because they have three daughters, ages 13, 18 and 19, who are on their parents’ plan and might get birth control at no additional cost.
To recap my main purpose of making this post:
Amazingly, Christians and conservatives believe that sex prior to marriage is immoral (a sin), yet they don’t have any expectation that single adults can or will resist sex until they marry. And even though the Bible says people are capable of sexual self control.
All of this in turn is, I believe, what drives Christian apathy in issuing pro-celibacy or pro-virginity sermons.
Because there is no expectation that anyone over 15 or 25 can abstain from sex, Christians see little to no point in writing blogs, books, or giving sermons that encourage the celibates to keep toughing it out and hold on to celibacy.
By the way? I know damn well that people have sexual self control. You can very well choose NOT TO HAVE SEX. It’s not impossible to not do the bump and grind for years. You can in fact live without sex, contrary to what 99% of what the rest of culture is telling you.
(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals” (ie, it’s supposedly an impossible feat for any human being to achieve)