-255x250.jpg "Joe Raedle/Getty Images")
It’s an understatement to say that the Obama administration’s announcement that it will require all health-care plans to include free coverage for contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs (abortifacients) and sterilizations did not go over as smoothly as planned.
While the new rule is similar to provisions already in place in 28 states, the administration distinguished itself by failing to include an adequate religious exemption.
As a result, Catholic charities, colleges and hospitals will be required to provide services that violate their religious beliefs.
The lack of a real religious exemption triggered a wave of backlash that appeared to catch the administration by surprise.
Opposition from many religious circles was to be expected, but the fact that publications such as USA Today and The Washington Post came out in opposition to the lack of a religious exemption could not have been anticipated.
Caught in a firestorm of controversy, the Obama administration tried to wordsmith its way out of the mess. Rather than admit they overstepped their constitutional authority by subjecting religious institutions to this rule, the president and his people merely switched the wording to state that the insurance companies were paying for the contraceptives rather than the religious institutions.
This is despite the fact that religious institutions are still the ones actually paying for the policy. The fact that they settled upon a semantic rather than a substantive change guarantees that the issue will not go away quietly, as the Obama administration had wished.
However, as the battle over a religious exemption moves forward, it is surprising that there has been little opposition to the mandate in general or to the fact that the new health-care law gives the administration the authority to make these unilateral changes to the insurance industry.
One gets the feeling that if religious colleges, charities and hospitals had been exempted from the start, no one would have blinked an eye over the federal government stepping in and mandating that all other insurance plans pay for contraceptives, abortifacients and sterilizations.
Why has there not been more outrage at the fact that Obamacare has given the federal government the authority to step into the market and dictate unilaterally what insurance plans we can purchase?
Why is there not more concern that the federal government is forcing contraceptive coverage on the entire populous?
The sad truth is that people have, by and large, fallen for the access-to-contraceptive argument and are content to let the government insert itself in this area.
Supporters of the new rule have taken advantage of this fact to mask what is really going on.
Like many other Obama surrogates, Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., have been out defending the ruling as an essential tool to ensure that women have access to “the full range of preventative-care measures.” Yet the rule has nothing to do with access to contraception.
No one in this country is being denied access to contraceptives, and the statistics bear this out.
In a country in which more than 90% of health plans already include contraceptive coverage, Planned Parenthood makes contraception readily available and the federal government aggressively promotes the distribution of free contraceptives to poor women, access to contraception is clearly not a problem.
In fact, a recent Centers for Disease Control study found that at least 93% of sexually active women of reproductive age have used some form of contraception, with 82% having used the pill.
These numbers should not be surprising, given that children are more likely to come home from school today with free contraceptives than they do with homework.
The numbers also reveal how disingenuous the access-to-contraception argument really is.
Only the grossly ill-informed or the hopelessly biased would spin this as an access-to-contraceptives issue. No one is preventing women from obtaining these services if they so choose.
In fact, from women’s health-care clinics to college vending machines, every woman knows where to find it. It’s as ubiquitous as aspirin, and it’s relatively inexpensive, too.
For those who actually have to pay for it, a month’s supply of birth-control pills costs less than cable or a cut-rate cell-phone plan.
The question is not about access or even affordability. The question is about who should be forced to pay for it. Will the government force employers and/or insurance companies to foot the entire bill, even those who have moral or religious objections? Or will they allow employers the freedom to decide what plans to offer their employees?
Given that more than 90% of plans already include this coverage, coupled with the fact that the federal government has aggressively been promoting the distribution of contraceptives to low-income women for decades, what is to gain from forcing the few plans that, largely for religious reasons, do not include these services to get in line?
Some have argued that the new rule is merely a deliberate assault on conservative religious groups, and given the level of rhetoric aimed at those who oppose the new rule, there appears to be more than a grain of truth in that sentiment.
Officially though, the administration has been touting the rule as a significant cost-saving measure. In fact, the inclusion of contraception and sterilization as required free preventive-care services stems from an Institute of Medicine report claiming the direct cost of unintended pregnancy in the United States is nearly $5 billion a year.
The IOM report suggests that providing free contraceptives would reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore drive that cost figure down.
Never mind that the same IOM report cited the CDC study that found 93% of sexually active women have already used some form of contraception. Never mind that the unintended pregnancy rate has remained stagnant for decades, despite an intense, coordinated campaign to put contraception into every nook and cranny of our lives.
The problem with unintended pregnancies in this country is not related to a lack of access to contraceptives.
Despite the fact that most women are using them, non-marital births, most of which are unplanned, are at an all-time high and have been trending upwards since the 1960s, when the contraceptive-distribution revolution began.
As a cost-saving measure against unplanned and unwed pregnancies, multiple studies have shown that increasing the availability of contraceptives has not been effective. It doesn’t even reduce abortions. In fact, states that already mandate contraceptive coverage, with very narrow religious exemptions, such as California and New York, have some of the highest abortion rates in the country. In addition, over 50% of women who have abortions were using artificial contraceptive during the month they became pregnant.
But data be damned, because at the high altar of progressive orthodoxy, contraception is king. It must work, and it has to work, even if it has to be jammed down our collective throat.
But just to cover their bases, the administration included sterilization as a required free preventive service. While not perfect, it is much more effective at driving down the pesky cost of prenatal care and childbirth than contraception.
Yet there is no reason to suspect that the administration plans to end there. Given the lack of congressional oversight inherent in the new health-care law, there is nothing preventing the Obama administration from unilaterally adding abortion as a required free preventive service.
It’s a huge cost-saver because, like sterilization, it removes the costs associated with childbirth and child rearing. What about mandating euthanasia coverage? The potential cost savings there are enormous.
While the lack of a religious exemption is what caught the public’s attention, the issue goes much, much deeper than that.
Obamacare gives the federal government a blank check to impose its will upon health-care delivery in this country. It gives it the power to control the insurance industry through mandates in coverage, to control the medical-device industry through mandated taxes, and, most importantly, to control the lives of every citizen through mandated and rationed care.
The legislation is so vague that nobody, not even the administration, knows the limits of its reach. When the Congressional Research Service scored the bill for how many new, unaccountable regulatory or oversight boards it would create, the answer came back that it was virtually unknowable.
The reason for this is that the bill gives the administration unprecedented powers to create new boards and write new rules and regulations as it sees fit.
If it wants to require abortion coverage, there is a board for that. If it wants to impose euthanasia, there is an oversight committee for that. If it wants to write a rule requiring that Catholic charities, hospitals and universities pay for contraceptive coverage, there is a process for that.
And the administration has shown no qualms about using these processes to promote the contraceptive agenda, even if it means trampling upon the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
Daniel Kuebler, Ph.D., is a professor of biology at Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio.
Edward Pentin: Pope Francis, the Mafia, and Pro-Abortion Politicians
Comments
Post a Comment
This is precisely why some of us were against this bill from the start. The Bishops got behind this bill. I was very disappointed when they did. That is proving to be a huge mistake.
This issue is not about contraception but the destruction of the Catholic Church, which is the real last bastion against Marxism. Obama,Pelosi and Sabelius know exactly what is at stake. Unfortunately we don’t have any leaders ,save maybe Santorum that is willing to stand up to the tyrants.
Our current crop of church leaders leave a lot to be desired.
I have never been involved in politics (other than to cast my vote) in 71 years, until the recent HHS mandate and controversy. In fact, I was a registered Democrat. I have made the switch to Republican, to do my part in overturning the HHS mandate.
I have questions I would like someone to ask Sandra Fluke.
1) If, as claimed your “friend” needed contraceptions to prevent ovarian tumors, did she ask her doctor to call her insurance company to make the case that this was medication needed for health care ... not contraceptive use? I have a Catholic, female doctor. I brought this problem to her yesterday. She said in most cases, a call from the doctor explaining the need would suffice, and approval obtained through most insurance carriers. 2) Did the “friend” avail herself of contraceptive medication by applying to Planned Parenthood. If not why not?
The law was not in effect ... so the responsibility of obtaining the medication should rest with the individual herself. Free medication coverage is and has been available for years.
Merciful Father, Abba, Author of Life, Creator Most High, forgive the sins committed on your tiny babies and their mothers in all forms. Give your people wisdom, knowlege, understanding, courage, and strength to rise up against these atrocities and the HHS mandation that perpetuates these sins against you. Give us voice, your words, to speak out and condemn this action. Motivate us to do your will and hear and accept the promptings of your Holy Spirit. Through the Sacred Heart of Jesus and The Blessed Mother, Our Lady of Guadelope, Please heal our nation!
It is about time that the clergy is resorting to aggressive language concerning this dictatorial mandate. i’m so tired of mush-mouth homilies.
What’s next? One child policy.
We are playing seven card stud and Jokers are wild. The President & HHS are holding a full house and have doubled down strong on their 3-Queens’s and 2-Jacks’s. We (US Catholics & The US Bishops) are sitting on a royal flush plus, both Jokers. The only question is whether or not the Catholic people have the will and the Catholic Bishops are Shepherd enough to lead the people in using them. Our cards are: ACE-18,992 Churches, KING-573 Catholic hospitals, QUEEN_244 Catholic Colleges & Univ., JACK-6,511 catholic elementary schools, TEN-1,345 Catholic HS. Plus we hold both JOKERS: Joker #1-1600 national and local Catholic Charities Joker#2 (and the killing wild card) countless Catholic owned private business plus millions upon millions of Catholic working people. The Catholic Bishops should ask for special lenten Rosary to be said each of the remaining Fridays of Lent. On the first Rosary EVERY Catholic Service, Every Catholic worker, Every Catholic business will stop functioning for the 15 minutes it takes to say that Rosary. On the Second Friday we will say two Rosaries taking 30 minutes, and during that time again EVERY thing and Everyone Catholic will not work. On the Third Friday we should say 3 Rosaries taking 45 minutes… if the President is still in office and still being a jerk On Good Friday we take the entire day to pray, no work, no school, no hospitals (excluding emergency and critical care of course). If BO sticks to his guns we start over the next Friday with a single Rosary, and do it all over again. Driving home the point that without us the US will fall into a depression so deep that the old Great Depression will soon be known as the blip.
The Protest Religious Oppression by HHS Rosary: Next Friday 3-3-12 every confirmed Catholic at work, home, driving, playing, even at school are asked to stop at 10am, and take 15 minutes to say the Rosary. Friday 3-9-12 again at 10am every Catholic is asked to stop whatever they are doing and say 2 Rosaries taking 30 minutes. Friday 3-6-12 every confirmed Catholic is asked to stop everything at 10am and say 3 Rosaries taking 45 minutes. Friday 3-23-12 every confirmed Catholic is asked to stop everything at 10am and take an hour saying four Rosaries. Only Catholics performing absolutely critical tasks, emergency services, critical patient care, Police and Firemen in the midst of duty are asked to postpone until the nearest available time, and then participate. Each following Friday until the HHS decision is rescinded in full we must add 15 minutes more and another Rosary to our protest. There are 77 million Catholics in this country, 26% of the US population. There is no good reason for us to accept this decision.
Most black American don’t know that 50% of aborted (murdered) babies are black…although Blacks are only 13% of the population in America. Hillary and Planned Parenthood promote these killings. Why doesn’t Obama stop giving millions of your money to Hillary and Planned Parent Hood to kill Black Babies. Seems Obama dislikes Blacks more than Catholics.
Oh, it’s very simple.
It’s not just a matter of religious freedom.
It’s a matter of freedom of conscience.
If a person is pro-life but atheist, they should still never be forced to purchase abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.
But the reason we have this problem is more systemic and fundamental: The government is doing stuff it is not licensed under God’s Moral Law (let alone the Constitution or the principle of Subsidiarity) to do, and as long as it exceeds its moral boundaries, it will repeatedly transgress by violating someone’s conscience.
This always happens when the government tries to take on the duty of almsgiving, which is normatively the sole province of non-forcible entities in a society (whether individual, or familial, or community, or the Church).
By forcibly usurping this role, Government does not add to the alms given by Christians. One wishes this were the case: That voluntary assistance plus taxpayer-funded assistance will be greater than either by itself. But all the economic data show otherwise: When one increases, the other drops proportionally over a very short period of time. In short, the Welfare State merely displaces all other forms of aid, and dismantles in the affected culture any Christian habit of direct initiative in caring for one’s neighbor.
This is why in Europe, the average voluntary giving to the needy hovers between 1% and 2% of income; among left-leaning Americans, it’s around 3%, and among right-leaning Americans, it’s around 6%. In the former Soviet Union, it barely exists at all. In short: Where the Welfare State mentality is most advanced, voluntary care for one’s neighbor is a nonexistent notion; where it is most opposed, people tend to care for their neighbors more.
Moreover, the Welfare State teaches the needy that their help does not come from the Lord and His Church, or even from family and friends, but by entitlement from politicians who will pick their unwilling neighbors’ pockets in return for votes. Thus politics is corrupted and the recipient of aid receives it in an attitude of presumption rather than of gratitude.
Meanwhile, it teaches those who have more (in a class-static society this would be an upper caste with inherited wealth, but in the U.S. it tends to be folk towards the end of their working career who’ve worked themselves up) not to trust their needier neighbors, and encourages them to take steps to defend what they have. Through this mechanism, the Welfare State always tends to exacerbate class divisions and, ultimately, class warfare.
Do you think I’m taking this thread off-topic, by talking of the Welfare State? I’m not.
ObamaCare and the HHS mandate are merely advances of the Welfare State. They are attempts to ensure that any kind of services the administration approves of are provided to the whole public without them (directly) paying for it.
This expansion does what the Welfare State always does: Creates class warfare, corrupts politics, and crushes the cultural ethos of private giving.
But it also expands the power of government by precedent, and thus endangers the freedoms of all citizens.
The impulse to achieve social justice by having Administration W take from Citizen X to provide Service Y to Citizen Z is always, in the end, carried out according to the fallible and often misinformed ideology or personal agenda of the humans who make up Administration W.
Were we governed by angels, that would be no problem; but as we are governed by men, our only safe recourse is to deny that they have just authority to do any of this. For if you give the current administration authority to do it (because you happen to like their governing philosophy), you are immediately by precedent granting that same reach of authority to the next administration, whose governing philosophy you despise.
The Catholic Bishops have not been wise, I’m afraid, and neither have many Catholic laypersons. They thought that if they could just expand government’s power enough to have it take care of poor people, the result would be poor people being well cared for.
Sadly, that’s not the case. When government’s power is expanded in this way, poor people are taken care of according to the ideology of whomever is currently in power…and when government’s power is so expanded, the type of people who’re most likely to strive for elective office are the types with the greatest “will to power,” the types least inclined towards “servant leadership” and most inclined to disregard the liberties of others in pursuit of their ideology.
We always think that if we just give the government the power to compel us in matters related to X, that power will always be used by people who think like us, people “on our side.” Not so. When we grant it in order to give “our side” an edge, we simultaneously grant it to “the other side.”
Better to grant it to neither, and thus keep all our liberties safer.
It is largely the fault of big-government Catholics that Planned Parenthood has government funding to begin with: They supported the precedent, earlier, when it favored their progressive social agenda. Now they made the same mistake when supporting “Obama Care” and have thereby made Planned Parenthood the most powerful healthcare related lobbying group in the entire nation.
Planned Parenthood is now in a position like that of Stalin, commenting on communist sympathizers in the United States. Now, in their moment of victory, Planned Parenthood can look back on the last 75 years of big-government Catholics agitating for an expanded Welfare State, and sum them up with two words: “Useful idiots.”
Well written except for my pet peeve. Again I see the word “guarantee” used and I cringe; “trampling upon the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution”. Again I say, if court decisions are not unanimous there is NO guarantee and when they are, still no guarantee! Why complain, just sit back and wait for the guarantee to kick in.
The bishops position on HHS mandate is socially irresponsible, as is the above article.
Clear, succinct and directly to the point. This should be submitted to every major newspaper.
Oh, it’s very simple.
It’s not just a matter of religious freedom.
It’s a matter of freedom of conscience.
If a person is pro-life but atheist, they should still never be forced to purchase abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.
But the reason we have this problem is more systemic and fundamental: The government is doing stuff it is not licensed under God’s Moral Law (let alone the Constitution or the principle of Subsidiarity) to do, and as long as it exceeds its moral boundaries, it will repeatedly transgress by violating someone’s conscience.
This always happens when the government tries to take on the duty of almsgiving, which is normatively the sole province of non-forcible entities in a society (whether individual, or familial, or community, or the Church).
By forcibly usurping this role, Government does not add to the alms given by Christians. One wishes this were the case: That voluntary assistance plus taxpayer-funded assistance will be greater than either by itself. But all the economic data show otherwise: When one increases, the other drops proportionally over a very short period of time. In short, the Welfare State merely displaces all other forms of aid, and dismantles in the affected culture any Christian habit of direct initiative in caring for one’s neighbor.
This is why in Europe, the average voluntary giving to the needy hovers between 1% and 2% of income; among left-leaning Americans, it’s around 3%, and among right-leaning Americans, it’s around 6%. In the former Soviet Union, it barely exists at all. In short: Where the Welfare State mentality is most advanced, voluntary care for one’s neighbor is a nonexistent notion; where it is most opposed, people tend to care for their neighbors more.
Moreover, the Welfare State teaches the needy that their help does not come from the Lord and His Church, or even from family and friends, but by entitlement from politicians who will pick their unwilling neighbors’ pockets in return for votes. Thus politics is corrupted and the recipient of aid receives it in an attitude of presumption rather than of gratitude.
Meanwhile, it teaches those who have more (in a class-static society this would be an upper caste with inherited wealth, but in the U.S. it tends to be folk towards the end of their working career who’ve worked themselves up) not to trust their needier neighbors, and encourages them to take steps to defend what they have. Through this mechanism, the Welfare State always tends to exacerbate class divisions and, ultimately, class warfare.
Do you think I’m taking this thread off-topic, by talking of the Welfare State? I’m not.
ObamaCare and the HHS mandate are merely advances of the Welfare State. They are attempts to ensure that any kind of services the administration approves of are provided to the whole public without them (directly) paying for it.
...continued…
Oh, it’s very simple.
It’s not just a matter of religious freedom.
It’s a matter of freedom of conscience.
If a person is pro-life but atheist, they should still never be forced to purchase abortifacient contraceptives against their conscience.
But the reason we have this problem is more systemic and fundamental: The government is doing stuff it is not licensed under God’s Moral Law (let alone the Constitution or the principle of Subsidiarity) to do, and as long as it exceeds its moral boundaries, it will repeatedly transgress by violating someone’s conscience.
This always happens when the government tries to take on the duty of almsgiving, which is normatively the sole province of non-forcible entities in a society (whether individual, or familial, or community, or the Church).
By forcibly usurping this role, Government does not add to the alms given by Christians. One wishes this were the case: That voluntary assistance plus taxpayer-funded assistance will be greater than either by itself. But all the economic data show otherwise: When one increases, the other drops proportionally over a very short period of time. In short, the Welfare State merely displaces all other forms of aid, and dismantles in the affected culture any Christian habit of direct initiative in caring for one’s neighbor.
This is why in Europe, the average voluntary giving to the needy hovers between 1% and 2% of income; among left-leaning Americans, it’s around 3%, and among right-leaning Americans, it’s around 6%. In the former Soviet Union, it barely exists at all. In short: Where the Welfare State mentality is most advanced, voluntary care for one’s neighbor is a nonexistent notion; where it is most opposed, people tend to care for their neighbors more.
Moreover, the Welfare State teaches the needy that their help does not come from the Lord and His Church, or even from family and friends, but by entitlement from politicians who will pick their unwilling neighbors’ pockets in return for votes. Thus politics is corrupted and the recipient of aid receives it in an attitude of presumption rather than of gratitude.
...continued…
this is one of the best articles i have read on this subject. alot of people dont see how this effects people and how they feel about their religious rights. if the gov.backed euthenesia,look how much money that would save hospitals and insurance companys! maybe there are people that say hurray for that too. it is about time people take responsability for their own bodies and make sure they protect themselves if they don’t want to bring children into the world. i will not vote for obama because of this,and some of the catholics in government better think about how they are practiceing their beliefs, and voting. thank you.
This is not about Health Care. This ego-maniac is bent on destroying this country & will use any dupe that presents itself, e.g. “sebelius”. The only answer is his removal. We must do everything we can to insure he & all his worshipers are removed in Nov. 2012.
People seem to forget that when Obama was in the Senate he sponsored and voted for a bill which would legalize infanticide. That is, it would permit doctors who failed at an abortion and the baby was born alive, to kill the infant. Those are his true colors. Before the election he may spin this HHS thing to keep from losing too many votes but once the election is over, LOOKOUT!
The article alleges that “Catholic charities, colleges and hospitals will be required to provide services that violate their religious beliefs.”. But what I’ve been told is that it’s the insurance companies that will be required to provide the coverage not the Catholic institutions. Moreover, not even the insurance companies provide the “services” as meaning the medical care. They just cover the financial reimbursement.
The article further alleges that the employer is actually the one paying for the services, but I have read different reports, some saying that contraceptive coverage saves money. And certainly, all employers do not always pay 100% of the policy cost, but many require the policy cost to be shared by the covered parties.
The article alleges “No one in this country is being denied access to contraceptives, and the statistics bear this out”, but there is no statistic available to prove the absolutist claim of “no one”, especially when by “denied” one is actually talking about affordability. The citation that “at least 93% of sexually active women of reproductive age have used some form of contraception” at some time in the past some unknown number of times (maybe once? twice? how often?) is in no way proof that everyone or even 93% have affordable and consistent access today, tomorrow and next week.
The article then claims that women’s contraception is “relatively inexpensive” but cites no figures to clarify such relativism. Is it $600 a year or what? To whom is such an amount inexpensive?
The article ludicrously alleges that “children are more likely to come home from school today with free contraceptives than they are with homework” but that’s not true of any children I know. Was it supposed to be a humor piece?
The article’s author should have sufficient grasp of statistics to understand that If “50% of women who have abortions were using artificial contraceptive during the month they became pregnant”, that in no way proves that contraception does not reduce abortions. Even if contraception failed only once in a billion times, even if it were 100% effective, it still could be that 50% of women who have abortions were using contraception sometime during the month (or week or day) when they became pregnant. After all, if the statistic were that “50% of women who have abortions attended church during the month they became pregnant”, I doubt the article would be suggesting that church service should be discontinued.
And finally, the biologist author professes his opinions on Constitutionality. While I respect people’s opinions as their opinions, I’m not aware that biological study makes for legal or political expertise.
While in medical school during an ethics class, we were presented one day with the depressing statistics of the epidemic of increasing unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and abortion rates in this country despite the wide use of contraceptives. I logically thought, wow, contraceptives are not helping here.
As the class is sitting there in a feeling of despair for this out of control situation in healthcare, the professer asks the question of how we can approach this issue. You could hear a pin drop, nobody responded, Then the professor proceeds to explain that we have to make sure that everyone of reproductive age is using “protection” and do everything in our power to put the 13 and 14 year olds on the pill. Even if they come into the office with a complaint such as headaches, menstraul cramps, etc. Any reason to have everyone using this medication is our responsibility now. I was appalled at this suggestion but kept my mouth shut knowing that there was no openness in the room to my logical opposition to birth control being the answer. I wanted to shout “this is the cause of the problem!!!” More women need to stand up to this injustice and sue the institution that is prescribing a carcinogenic medication to our daughters!
It’s scary that the governmet will be able to do all that - and that’s why this needs to be repealed. Nothing has been said about the Catholic business owner and his or her ability to object to any of this.
Churchill said that “When the eagles are silent, the parrots begin to jabber.”. I understand this to mean that the majestic and powerful eagle represents knowledge and strength, whereas the parrots, as colourful as they are , signify those who generally do not reflect deeply, but noisily and cheerfully go about their daily living.This applies to the current HHS debate. Philosophically the eagles are the Church and those who support freedom of religion and conscience while the parrots are those powers residng in the White House. However, at the level of raw political power and will, it is the reverse: supporters of conscience rights are the parrots and the politicians opposing them are the eagles! I do believe in a limited form of alchemy however in that voters can change this power imbalance by simply voting to do so in November and quiet the malicious “Jabbering”.
One of the sad things is how people are brainwashed into accepting “the pill” as a way to treat and prevent disease when all it does is cause breast cancer and mask problems or make them worse. If they really want true women’s healthcare that actually helps women and saves money they should support NaProTechnology.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.