It doesn't really change access, but it would change *usage* - because people don't make rational decisions with money. The simple fact that something is free instead of $2 (even if your health care costs $2 more) can dramatically increase its usage.
So now the Catholic objection is not to them having to pay for the birth control, but to women having any access to it even if they pay for it themselves?
Why? Their position is completely nonsensical. 1) Refusing contraceptives in their health care package in no possible way absolves them from supporting/paying for said drugs. If a woman who works at a catholic-affiliated employer buys them off-insurance via a catholic-affiliated employer salary, the net result is precisely the same. 2) Contraceptives are legal and a requirement for non-religious employer health plans. If the catholic church wants to argue that affiliated industries are "religious employers", than they need to both a) stop accepting any federal or state dollars, and b) prove it by not hiring anyone unaffiliated with the catholic church. 3) The whole thing is just ****ing stupid regardless, because contraceptives provide other benefits than just birth control. Furthermore, and far more importantly, it's cherry-picking on a massively goofy scale. These same catholic-affiliated institutions hire non-catholics, chronic masturbators, liars, maybe even *gasp* teh gayz. Any number of "sinful" lifestyles are being supported by these institutions via the requirements of "non-discriminatory" hiring - precisely what a *real* religious employer will NOT do - you can't join the priesthood as a mormon, or a birth-control advocate, or if you're gay (heck, if you're married you're not eligible). But if you work at a catholic hospital none of these outdated and socially inept policies apply, because the religious argument is no longer even possible (i.e., trying to run a hospital with only "catholic approved" doctors would be challenging, lol). Their argument is totally ridiculous, but everyone pretends otherwise simply because the magic words "birth control" and "catholic" are involved.
Of course, they're catholic. Did you really think they only cared about their "involvement"? Please...
Yes, but is the religious institution being forced to pay for it by the government in that instance? No. I don't agree with them being a requirement in the first place. And it isn't the Churches fault that we keep assisting them (even though I wish we would stop), and I think your stipulations for being considered a "religious employer" are pretty arbitrary and silly to me. (even though I wish those were the rules... despite how unrealistic they are) Yes, I agree most religions and their institutions are dumb and hypocritcal. That doesn't change the fact that there is no justification for forcing them to pay for insurance which covers something they don't want to cover. Do I wish they would? Yes. Do I think they should be required to do it by law? No.
I've no opinion on whether birth control should be included in coverage. I suspect it should -- but don't really know. And I don't care. It's the cloaking non religious activities under the guise of religious persecution that gets me. A hospital run by the church should be subject to the same employment law as one that is not. Simple as that. If a church run hospital is exempt by virtue of its ownership then other businesses which are owned by individuals with similar convictions should also have an out. And they don't. And they shouldn't. The good ol' Catholic Church. Alienating parishioners a little more each day.
That is false and the article has since been edited. Coverage for contraception cause premiums to rise. Yours and majors conclusions are also wrong. The church is just asking they not provide full coverage like the Hawaii model.
Contraceptives are legal and readily available in the US. The catholic-affiliated industries provide wages to their employees, who may then purchase said readily-available drugs. They are de-facto forced to pay for it, no matter the tortuous path the money takes. This argument is vaguely like playing 3-degrees-to-kevin-bacon and it's similarly dumb. Of course the stipulations are silly. We're talking about a intrinsically subjective definition. As such, the only plausible demarcation is the church's own definition - i.e., membership in the church. It ceases to be "their institution" when they extend employment within it to non-members.
Kudos to the white house if true. I guess they realized it would cost them politically. As I have already said the real world effect of this will be nill.
I repeat, is the government forcing them to pay for it in that instance? No. Key word there. Gubbermint. Good luck enforcing that. I disagree and I don't think I want that being where we draw the line, mainly because that opens up a whole other can of worms in terms of government oversight. Nor do I want to discourage religious institutions from working with, employing, or being utilized by non-religious people. Bottom line; we need a rule that applies to all institutions stating that if they take public funds/assistance, then they must comply with federal law. If Churches want to make and enforce their own arbitrary rules, I'm fine with that. But don't do it on my dime. Plus, we probably shouldn't be telling insurance companies what they can and cannot do... but that's another argument altogether.
They're not arbitrary or silly. They've been established through over a hundred years of law as a necessity of addressing the differences between church activities and activities run by a church. Without these definitions we couldn't have church run hospitals, daycares, schools, universities and other services that benefit us all. (or it would be very difficult as they couldn't access the needed funding despite providing a needed service). When you agree with the church do you believe that nobody should have to buy coverage that they disagree with...or that the churches should be specifically exempted even for non religious operations. PS -- I don't get this new exemption. Is contraception covered or not? Is it basically a paper shuffle -- or is there an actual change to coverage?
From what I understand the compromise to be is that the insurance that religious institutions agree to offer employees will not be required to offer contraceptives, but religious institutions will be required to offer riders to policies that employees can seek coverage if so desired by the individual.
I don't understand the problem really. Being forced to have contraception in the health plan is different than employers being forced to provide the contraception themselves. They aren't handing the contraceptives out or in any way forcing employees to use contraception. Any employee that chooses to not use their coverage of contraception is under no obligation to use that part of their contraception. Any employee who wishes to take advantage of the coverage may. 98% of catholic women have used contraception at one time, and sometimes birth control pills are recommended for any number of other medical issues.
Thanks mc mark. Does the employee pay for this extra rider? Seems unfair if she must. And ultra-petty by the church.
Don't think so. And it seems I misspoke, the burden in on the insurance company, not the institution. http://thinkprogress.org/health/201...-offer-contraception-coverage-free-of-charge/ Senior administration officials announced early this morning that President Obama will announce a new “accommodation” for religious liberties in the rule requiring all employers to offer contraception coverage without additional cost sharing. Under the new policy, “all women will still have access to free preventive care, including contraception,” no matter where they work.” However, if a nonprofit religiously affiliated organization like a Catholic college or hospital objects to offering birth control, the insurance company will be required to provide the coverage free of charge and the employer will not pay for it. Sister Carol Keehan, President of the US Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood head Cecile Richards support the compromise, the administration officials said. Significantly, unlike the Hawaii model, religiously affiliated organizations will not have to refer employees to contraception coverage. Instead, the same insurer that provides insurance to the employer, will be offering contraception coverage to the employee directly. Insurance companies will be able to deliver birth control at no additional charge because the cost of contraception is far less than the costs associated with an unwanted pregnancy, the administration official explained. Therefore, “there is no extra premium” associated with the service.
