Contraceptives Policy & The UMC

The United Methodist Church has a rich history of promoting dialogue in discerning our stance on various social issues.  One of the General Agencies of the UMC is the Board of Church & Society.  They seek to interpret our Book of Resolutions in light of the social issues that are facing us.  Like the Book of Resolutions, the stances taken by this board are meant to encourage further discussion and dialogue in a spirit of civility and thoughtful Christian discernment.

Recently, I was asked by a church member to share where the United Methodist Church stands on the contraceptive policy issue.  Below are the thoughts of the head of the GBCS.  This does not mean that every United Methodist has to adhere to this stance.  It does mean that we are called to have some understanding of the Book of Resolutions and to reflect on the issues that face us from the perspective of scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, or what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

The Book of Resolutions is reviewed every four years by 1,000 lay and clergy delegates at General Conference.
.
By Jim Winkler, General Secretary, General Board of Church & Society
.
I’ve always appreciated that The United Methodist Church has never claimed to be a victim of religious persecution. Even though we imposed our religious views on others when we pushed through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting sale and manufacture of alcohol nearly 100 years ago, we did not insist our religious liberty was infringed when Prohibition was repealed.
We strongly oppose gambling and find war incompatible with Christian teaching. We don’t suggest, however, that the spread of gambling and the constant warfare around the world represent persecution of Methodism.
.
Why is it that the liberty of those who are denied basic health-care services is not at issue?
.
Yet, when the General Board of Church & Society agreed that religiously affiliated employers have an obligation to provide contraceptive services through the health insurance plans they offer to their employees, we have been accused of thwarting the religious liberty of various groups such as evangelical Christians and the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Why is it that the liberty of those who are denied basic health-care services is not at issue? Contraception benefits society. It reduces the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, reduces the need for abortions, and assists families to plan the number and spacing of their children.

Doesn’t make it so

Just because someone says their religious liberty is being infringed upon does not make it so. Just because the Catholic hierarchy says that birth control is a sin against God does not make it so.
. 
This is one area where The United Methodist Church is in clear disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church: “People have the duty to consider the impact on the total world community of their decisions regarding childbearing and should have access to information and appropriate means to limit their fertility” (United Methodist Social Principles, 162K, 2008 Discipline). “We affirm the right of men and women to have access to comprehensive reproductive health/family planning information and services that will serve as a means to prevent unplanned pregnancies, reduce abortions, and prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS” (Social Principles, 162V, 2008 Discipline).
.
This is one area where The United Methodist Church is in clear disagreement with the Roman Catholic Church.
.
A compromise has been offered that enables religiously affiliated institutions to refuse basic contraception coverage to their employees by mandating that insurance companies offer these services to women who opt for them. Catholic leadership has rejected the compromise.
.
Why? Because they don’t want women to have the liberty to choose to use birth control. They want to deny that freedom to women.

Wrong then and now

There were those who argued that racial segregation was biblically mandated, that keeping women out of church leadership was sanctioned by God, and that destruction of the environment is approved by God. All of these notions were and are wrong. Religious freedom is not violated by denying religiously affiliated hospitals, universities and other institutions the right to discriminate on the basis of race or gender.

Now, Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri proposes that any employer — religious or anti-religious, for that matter — should have the “right” to refuse coverage to its employees of any services, treatments or medications it disagrees with.
 
Perhaps an employer may hold the wild idea that use of pain medication or anesthesia indicates some sort of moral weakness. Therefore, the employer excludes that from the health-insurance plan offered to employees. Or, maybe an employer thinks that people contract diabetes due to poor dietary and exercise decisions they’ve made. Therefore, the employer doesn’t want to offer treatment for the disease.

Notice, if you will, that in this debate it is the religious freedom of institutions and corporations that is being addressed, not that of employees. In a world where corporations are declared to be people —where corporations even claim religious freedom — is it possible that real human beings, employees, no longer will have the rights of human beings or the freedom to practice behavior they consider ethical?

We hold as a denomination the belief that health care is a basic right and part of that includes ensuring access for women to contraception. This is about the common good.

Date: 2/22/2012
.