The Maroon

Letter to the Editor: Loyola has an obligation to provide care

In response to “Sexual health is not Loyola’s responsibility” from the April 20 issue of The Maroon

By Susan Baughman

Published: Friday, May 4, 2012

Updated: Thursday, May 3, 2012

After reading Edward Seyler and Garrett Fontenot’s opinion columns in the Maroon and in lieu of what is going on politically, women’s health care needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed by a female.

First and foremost, it is important to point out that women make up 51 percent of the entire population and 57 percent of Loyola’s student population, so it is in everyone’s best interest to care about women’s health. Although Loyola and other Catholic institutions like to pretend there is no sex outside of marriage and for, God forbid, reasons other than conception. We do live in the twenty-first century where 98 percent of women have and/or will use some form of contraception in their lifetime, thus alluding to the fact that yes, we have sex when we aren’t married and, yes, for reasons other than producing children. The debates, as Fontenot has argued, come in when we ask our universities to pay for our contraception and provide condoms, which I strongly and relentlessly will always stand for.

Fontenot has pointed out that Loyola and other universities alike are affiliated with the Catholic Church, which many believe should give them the option to “opt out” of providing women with critical health necessities such as birth control. And yes, I consider this a necessity because the research has shown that access to free contraception has directly lowered abortion rates, maternal mortality and unintended pregnancies. I am assuming that Loyola and other Catholic religious institutions and individuals have the utmost value of life and believe abortions kill “people,” so even with their own rationale, contraception is necessary and saves lives.

Another crucial fact that pro-life, anti-woman and anti-healthcare persons have left out is the fact that Catholic universities and hospitals are not getting their funding from the generous donators at church every Sunday, but from our federal government, which thankfully Barack Obama heads at the moment, so unless they plan on getting their federal aid from a place other than the government, no, they cannot opt out of women’s healthcare.

Fontenot concludes his argument that “institutions should encourage their students to follow the teachings of the institution they are aligned,” and students should “take their health into their own hands.” The fact is that sex is a part of life and it is a part of health. No matter what your religion is teaching you, more likely than not, you will have sex.

Although I am fortunate to have health insurance to take my health into my own hands, other students do not have such opportunities. Loyola has a commitment to its students that needs to be met, regardless of its religious affiliations.

Sincerely, Susan Baughman, sociology sophomore

Comments

5 comments
Anonymous
Mon May 7 2012 18:09
Condoms are cheap and the nearest convenience store is less than a mile away!
Anonymous
Fri May 4 2012 23:02
I think somebody takes their English major a little too seriously. Any person could understand that argument and the contents within it. I am sure she was more focused on getting her opinion across than crossing the t's and dotting the lower case j's.

To Mr. God Bless,

I am assuming you are Catholic and are following the tenants of the Catholic church regarding contraception. Therefore, I would suspect that you are aware of the Pope (the one you guys consider the Vicar of Christ on Earth) and his comments that condoms contribute to the contraction of AIDS.
What a fabulously, immoral and idiotic thing to say. Especially since 2 million people die each day from HIV/AIDs. Furthermore, the Catholic church has about a billion followers, so I would consider them a pretty big influence in the world and on how people view right and wrong. Even worse, an Archbishop traveled to Mozambique (where 1 in 8 people are infected with HIV) and spread the lie that "British condom manufacturers were intentionally infecting condoms with HIV". In a country where many of those infected are uneducated and easily persuaded by the high-standing authorities like the pope or archbishop, you have to realize that these types of comments from such "moral" figures have enormous outcomes for their followers and the decisions they make regarding safe-sex. Research also shows that HIV rates were 80% lower for individuals who reported using condoms, compared to those who said they didn't. It's far lower for those who don't. I think 80% is a pretty good number. Don't you?

I know HIV is not exactly the topic you were discussing, however, I had to make it clear where YOUR biased opinion may be coming from and where YOU may be getting your morals and values from. They are presumably coming from the institute I am describing who have directly lied and possibly helped spread instance of HIV in a region of the world that is so badly infected by this epidemic.
This makes me think twice about whether the catholic church is really "Pro-life" as they loved to boast about. It's obvious they don't share mine, and especially womens, best interests when it comes to healthcare.

Of course, I could also always throw in how the Catholic church and the pope covered up the rape and molestation of innocent children for so long just to protect their holy reputation, but I thought that was too easy. If I have to get my morals or base my convictions off of an institution, it certainly wouldn't be the catholic church. You should probably hold off on criticizing somebody's "biased" opinion that is rooted in rationale and common sense when your own bias is rooted from organizations that believe a cracker REALLY is the body of christ and that it's okay to tell a poor kid in Africa who is at risk of HIV, "don't use condoms, because God will protect you!".

Anything that helps women stay healthy and prolongs their lives should be something all people are for. The average sane, moral person (or responsible University, for that matter) would see the statistics and research about contraception use and think, wow, this stuff seems to work! Maybe it's a good idea! We should give condoms and contraception to everyone! Sadly, however, Loyola has that whole catholic thing, which really gets in the way of common sense. You can take your values and formulate your opinion about contraception from them. I'll take mine from the vasty majority doctors, researchers and scientist who overwhelmingly agree that contraception helps saves lives and helps prevent disease.

Thanks and God Bless Rational Thinking.

Anonymous
Fri May 4 2012 21:47
Well why don't you tell all of the Catholic Institutions that you admire so much to stop accepting government money and get all their money from the sinners at church every sunday. Or maybe GOD, who "works in mysterious ways," should fund Loyola, oh wait, he doesn't work in mysterious ways because he may not even exist. You are looney, and clearly a conservative, close minded, uninformed person attempting to bring us back to the 1900's
Luke Zumo, PT, DPT
Fri May 4 2012 15:53
Susan, can you reference the research that shows that "access to free contraception has directly lowered abortion rates, maternal mortality and unintended pregnancies?" Who funded that particular study and what organizations are they affiliated with? Providing that type of information is more helpful than simply making a generalized statement about what "research shows."

On a related note, the Guttmacher institute, which is basically the research wing of Planned Parenthood (a pro abortion, pro-contraception organization) provided statistics in May 2010 that while 40% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion, this percentage rises to 54% for women who used a contraceptive during the month they became pregnant. [Guttmacher Institute, "Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States," May 2010 at www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html.]

Also, numerous studies have shown that contraceptive programs do not reliably or consistently reduce abortion rates. For example, one review summarizing 23 separate studies found that not one of the studies could show a reduction in abortion rates from programs expanding access to so-called "emergency contraception." [E. Raymond et al. "Population Effect of increased Access to Emergency Contraceptive Pills," Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 109 (2007) 181-8.]

I understand that these studies do not directly address "free contraception," but what they do address (even from the point-of-view of "pro-contraception" organizations) is that your assertion that "contraception is necessary and saves lives" is really nothing more than your biased and statistically unfounded opinion.

Susan, as a healthcare professional myself, I have come to understand that the purpose of healthcare is to treat and/or prevent pathology. For example, the treatment and/or prevention of high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, etc. These are pathological states. Since when has fertility become a pathology? A state of fertility is a healthy state, and shouldn't be treated as a disease or pathology - especially not with funds from Catholic institutions.

Thanks and God Bless

Anonymous
Fri May 4 2012 15:33
Come on, Maroon.

You could have found someone who opposes your point of view AND writes coherently, right? Or at least edited this so it doesn't look like an angry YouTube rant?

Pathetic

View full site