An Issue of Blood
Two thousand years ago in Jerusalem, a woman was suffering from a disorder we would now likely diagnose as menorrhagia, or continual postpartum bleeding. She bled for twelve years, suffering immense physical pain as well as spiritual deprivation and ostracization. The Pharisees deemed her unclean and left her in the streets. Christ healed her in a moment. Last year in Provo, a woman was suffering from the same issue of blood. She bled for months, begging her BYU-affiliated health insurance company to cover the cost of an IUD that would heal her. They deemed her claim inadequate and left her to suffer alone.
But she is not alone. The instagram account @dmba_stories collects and publishes women’s experiences trying to receive financial coverage from DMBA, BYU’s health insurance company, for their reproductive medical care. Story after story tells of intense emotional turmoil, unnecessarily prolonged physical affliction, and exhausting phone calls with sexist insurance representatives. One woman was denied birth control coverage while undergoing cancer treatments that would have devastating consequences on any fetus. Another woman waited years to save up the out-of-pocket $1,500 cost for an IUD, only to be slammed with all the $500 cost of the regular check up where she happened to schedule the IUD as well. All of them cannot understand why this policy, which contradicts current LDS teachings, exists.
Birth control is a fundamental part of women’s reproductive health. Contraceptives allow women to plan their pregnancies, enabling them to have children if and when they are ready. Family planning gives women the opportunity to complete their education, enter the workplace, and make conscious choices about their families. It also ensures the timing of a pregnancy aligns with the mother’s physical health to reduce any potential medical complications. Multiple academic studies have determined that access to birth control increases education attainment and family income for generations. Birth control can also be used for a wide range of medical purposes beyond sexual health, including abnormal bleeding, gynecologic disorders, or even acne.
BYU health insurance is outsourced to Deseret Mutual Benefit Administrators, a healthcare coverage company whose clients comprise the entire LDS workplace, including the LDS Church itself, other BYU campuses, Deseret News, Deseret Book, Deseret Industries, Ensign College, the Polynesian Cultural Center, Temple Square Hospitality, and more. The official DMBA policy is to deny birth control for family planning and only cover “medically necessary” birth control. The unofficial DMBA policy, as evidenced by hours of phone calls from female patients, is to reject medical prescriptions and doctors’ notes, and only cover sterilization for women who have had five children or are over the age of forty. The clear implication of this policy is that birth control is a privilege reserved for women who can prove they deserve it. That is sexist and dangerous. The standard was determined by a directorial board of 11 male directors and officers. Thousands of women, ranging from all ages and marital statuses, are denied affordable access to birth control.
It is legal for the DMBA to exclude coverage of birth control and family planning practices under a 2020 ruling from the US Supreme Court, which cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as superseding the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage mandate. In other words, any for-profit religious institution can notify the Department of Health and Human Services that they are invoking a religious exemption to the federal law, and they will immediately be granted the exception. The LDS church’s law firm filed an amicus brief on this case in conjunction with other conservative religious groups, arguing for the right to exemption. This fact, alongside the LDS church’s ownership of DMBA, implies a tacit support of DMBA’s anti-birth control policy.
However, this policy is inconsistent with official LDS church doctrine. The church handbook section 38.6.4 on birth control states “the decision about how many children to have and when to have them is extremely personal and private. It should be left between the couple and the Lord.” There is no language banning, discouraging, or even regulating the use of birth control. There is no mediation role by the bishopric or higher church authorities. This is a matter of agency and personal revelation. Yet the DMBA policy continues to ban the use of birth control, inserting a mediator between the couple and God, and destroying the principle of agency advocated by the church. The dissonance between words and action speaks much louder than the words themselves.
Outside the handbook, words of prophets and general authorities reinforce the moral viability of birth control. As Elder Dale G. Renlund wrote, “Heavenly Father intends that sexual relations in marriage be used to create children and to express love and strengthen the emotional, spiritual, and physical connections between husband and wife.” The “and” in the sentence tells us that sex has multiple purposes, all of which are ordained by God. If sex within a marriage without the purpose of procreation is righteous, and birth control makes that possible, then birth control use is moral. Similarly, the gospel topic page for chastity states “[Sex] is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife,” again including an “and” which opens up the possibility of using birth control if a couple chooses. Even a 1975 article from the Ensign states, “We know of no directive from the Lord that proper sexual experience between husbands and wives need be limited totally to the procreation of children.”
So why did the LDS church file in support of employers’ rights to deny contraceptive coverage to women? Why does BYU refuse to provide birth control to 19-year-old newlyweds? The amicus brief statement of interest in the case makes it clear: “We submit this brief out of a shared concern that the dangerous conception of third-party harm invoked by the Third Circuit threatens to undermine RFRA as a meaningful defense for the free exercise of religion.” They do not object to the topic of the case, only the means by which it could be achieved. To them, this is a case of the future of religious freedom.
But to the thousands of women who are affected every day, this is a gross violation of freedom. It has led to untold heartache and pain for them and their families. The DMBA’s refusal to cover contraceptives is irresponsible and dangerous, and places an undue emotional, physical, and financial burden on women and families, especially young college students. By continuing this policy, the LDS church and its affiliated institutions are demonstrating that they prioritize abstract legal implications over the lives of their mothers, sisters, and daughters. They are sacrificing women’s bodies to prove a point. The issue of blood can only be solved with an immediate change in policy from DMBA.