The Effects of Birth Control

Birth Control is “the practice of preventing unwanted pregnancies, typically by use of contraception” (Google).  Birth control has become a trending topic in the last few months.  With the Supreme Court ruling that small non corporate businesses do not have to provide birth control that is known to cause abortions, if it opposes their beliefs.  Then, the State of California overruled this decision on Friday August 22, 2014, saying that any business or college must provide and pay for birth control for any of their employees, no matter their religious affiliation.   

The Hobby Lobby case started back in September 2012 and went to the Supreme Court a year later and finally ended in June of 2014.  The Court stated “our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.”[1]  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of the First Amendment is what led Hobby Lobby to their five to four victory.  The United States believes in freedom of religion and you should not be mandated to provide benefits that are prohibited by your religious beliefs.  After the verdict of the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby released this statement saying, “The Court’s decision is a victory, not just for our family business, but for all who seek to live out their faith. We are grateful to God and to those who have supported us on this difficult journey.”

Recently, California Governor Jerry Brown ordered two exempted Roman Catholic University’s to provide full contraceptives and unregulated abortion coverage to their employees against their moral beliefs.  Keep in mind the Governor Brown was born and raised Catholic, spending three years in the seminary (education for Catholic priests), and was married in the Catholic Church in 2005.  So why does Jerry Brown single out the Catholic University’s that were considered exempt under Federal HHS mandates?  Why does he feel these religious organizations should pay for abortions and birth control when it is against their moral teachings?  The answer to this question is the reproductive privacy act which passed in 2003.  This act “guarantees a woman’s right to both terminate a pregnancy and to birth control.”[2]  With California ignoring what the Supreme Court ruled on back in June, just goes to show how our society is attached to abortion.  This controversy “serves as a very poignant reminder of the fact that religious liberty requires essential and continual vigilance. And, though this particular policy refers to two Catholic institutions in California, this news should serve as ample warning to evangelical Christian institutions that we could be next on the line. That the protection that was now denied to these two Roman Catholic institutions can just as quickly, and just as arbitrarily, be denied to evangelical colleges and universities as well.”[3]

Growing up in the Roman Catholic Church and attending Catholic School for nine years, has deeply rooted me in Catholicism.  “The official teaching of the Catholic Church does state that artificial (condoms, diaphragms, intrauterine devices) and chemical (the "pill", foams, gels) forms of birth control are always morally wrong. The Catholic Church only approves of natural forms of artificial birth control, the best-known and most effective of which is The Natural Family Planning Method (NFP).”[4]  I do not just believe birth control is wrong, because that is what they ingrained in me.  I believe it is wrong because what they have taught me about God and the bible.  So, I believe that any company or university should not be obligated to pay for birth control or abortions if it is against their religious beliefs. 

---

[1] www.hobbylobbycase.com

[2] http://www.albertmohler.com  

[3] http://www.albertmohler.com  

[4] http://www.ascensioncatholic.net

The State of Jefferson

Over the years California has been facing more and more challenges.  The state is in financial crisis, education is being cut, and thousands of people are out of work.  California serves as a home to 38 million people, many feel that that they are not being represented fairly in Sacramento or Washington D.C.  This is why numerous individuals have wanted to split California into two.

Since the 1840’s various people have wanted to fuse Northern California with Southern Oregon to create the State of Jefferson.  But it wasn’t till nearly one hundred years later on November 17, 1941 that the counties on both borders came together and had a meeting.  “The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted to allocate 100 dollars to research the possibility of seceding from the state of California and joining the other counties to form a new 49th state.”[1]  The idea of the State of Jefferson gained popularity quickly and was competing for the front page of the San Francisco Chronicle nearly everyday.  On December fourth they elected the judge of Crescent City, John L. Childs, to become the first governor of the state.  They were so pleased with the progress they had made, that they had a parade to celebrate how far they had come.  But sadly three days later all their hopes and dreams of a new state came to abrupt ending, when Pearl Harbor was bombed.  Now that the war is long gone, the State of Jefferson is again a topic of conversation, not as the forty-ninth state but as the fifty-first state.  It will not be easy getting the new state approved, first it must be approved by the California Legislature and then by Congress.  If all goes well, “There could be as many as sixteen northern California counties that could join in, creating an area that would make up more than a quarter of the state's land mass, about twice the size of New Hampshire with about four hundred and sixty-seven thousand residents."[2]  The new state would span from some of “California's most majestic scenery, from rugged coastlines to agriculture-dominated valleys, Mount Shasta and Redwood National Park.”[3]  As of now, officials from Glenn, Modoc, Siskiyou, Sutter, and Yuba counties have voted and are ready to unite for this movement of the fifty first state.  

Now many of you are probably wondering how this is controversial.  Many people are for The State of Jefferson because it promises a smaller government, lower taxes, and more representation.  While other people fight back and say The State of Jefferson can not pay for education, social welfare, health, and other programs and services the way California does as a whole, so it would not be worth it to split apart and lose these luxuries?  Throughout my research I learned that on an average the people of Northern California are among the poorest of the state, but Southern California has a lot more people living on the streets and more illegal immigrants to support.  With this being said if our tax money stayed right here in Northern California I believe we would be able to support ourselves, therefore I believe California should become two states.  Mohandas Gandhi once said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”    

---

[1]  Jefferson State.  http://www.jeffersonstate.com

[2] The Movement to Keep the 51^st State Alive.  http://www.thewire.com

[3] 2 of 3 California secession measures defeated.  http://www.redding.com