Contraception mandate outrages religious groups

As has been noted before, I'm not particularly religious so by no means am I an expert on this subject. From what I've been able to gather from the issue is that within Obamacare, their is a provision that birth control is to be available even in hospitals/clinics that are operated by religious groups. The Catholic church of course has strict beliefs regarding birth control. So this provision leaves the church run hospitals in a bad spot... and of course in a spot that it probably should of never been in in the first place. Oh boy, maybe they should of read through the bill before they made it law... stupid morons.

The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.

The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?

For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones. Religious groups that oppose the regulation say it forces people of faith to choose between upholding church doctrine and serving the broader society.

"It's not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.

Keehan's support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate "has jolted us." She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to "pursue a correction."

The U.S. Health and Human Services Department adopted the rule to improve health care for women. Last year, an advisory panel from the Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, recommended including birth control on the list of covered services, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies. The regulation includes a religious exemption if an organization qualifies. Under that provision, an employer generally will be considered religious if its main purpose is spreading religious beliefs, and if it largely employs and serves people of the same faith. That means a Catholic parish likely would qualify for a religious exemption; a large church-run soup kitchen probably would not.

Employers that fail to provide health insurance coverage under the federal law could be fined $2,000 per employee per year. The bishops' domestic anti-poverty agency, Catholic Charities, says it employs 70,000 people nationwide. The fine for the University of Notre Dame, the most prominent Catholic school in the country, could be in the millions of dollars.

HHS says employers can appeal a decision on whether they qualify for an exemption. But Hannah Smith, senior counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said, "The mandate vests too much unbridled discretion in the hands of government bureaucrats."

Mandates for birth-control coverage are not entirely new for religious groups. Twenty-eight states already require contraceptive coverage in prescription drug plans. Of those states, 17 offer a range of religious exemptions, while two others provide opt-outs of other kinds. However, opponents of the HHS regulation say there is no state mandate as broad as the new federal rule combined with a religious exemption that is so narrow.

Even in states where the requirement already exists, the issue is far from settled.

Wisconsin's 2009 contraception mandate did not include a religious exemption, but allowed an exception for employers who self-insure. While some dioceses in the state were able to self-insure, others couldn't afford to do so. The Diocese of Madison, Wis., ended up offering a policy with birth-control coverage, but asked employees to follow church teaching and not use the benefit. Local bishops continued to lobby state lawmakers for an exemption. But leaders knew a national health care overhaul was in development and hoped the federal law would be an improvement, said John Huebscher, executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the state's bishops.

In California, whose religious exemption served as the model for the Obama administration, dioceses and some church-run agencies were able to self-insure, said Carol Hogan of the California Catholic Conference, but that option is for the most part unavailable under the federal health care law. Church-run groups could have stopped offering insurance to their employees, but considered that option unfair to workers.

The bishops have responded sharply to the regulation, launching a nationwide campaign against the mandate.

Bishops in more than 140 dioceses issued statements that were read at Mass last weekend. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., called the requirement "a radical incursion on the part of our government into freedom of conscience." Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote that "the Obama administration was essentially saying 'to hell with you,' particularly to the Catholic community by dismissing our beliefs, our religious freedom and our freedom of conscience."

The Becket Fund had previously filed two federal lawsuits over the regulations on behalf of Belmont Abbey College, a Catholic liberal arts school near Charlotte, N.C., and Colorado Christian University, an evangelical school near Denver. Both challenge the mandate as a violation of several freedoms, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says the government cannot impose a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. The fine for Belmont Abbey would be more than $300,000 for the first year, and more than $500,000 for Colorado Christian, Smith, the Becket Fund counsel, said.

Many conservatives are also supporting legislation by Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, R-Neb., that would codify a series of exceptions to the new health care law on religious and conscience grounds

For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect Aug. 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting Jan. 1, 2014. Women working for secular enterprises, from profit-making companies to government, will have access to the new coverage starting Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases.

Workplace health plans will have to cover all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration, ranging from the pill to implantable devices to sterilization. Also covered is the morning-after pill, which can prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex and is considered tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.

There is no mandate to cover abortions. But that is little comfort to Catholic leaders, since the regulation violates other church teachings.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Thursday that the administration will not reconsider the decision.

---

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar in Washington contributed to this report.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120203/D9SLSUPO0.html

Views: 719

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Have been reading of late that abortions raise the risk of cancer and contraceptives raise the risk of breast cancer. Hummmmmmmmmm wonder if that is why so many more cases of breast cancer in younger and younger women?

Actually that is really old, I heard of that many years ago.

One thing about the breast cancer in the younger generations is they say that the older women who had numerous kids and were pregnant(and breast feeding) half of their lives had less BC due to the hormones being different while pregnant/feeding and that  preventing the breast cancer. It was not the pills, but the fact of being pregnant that prevented it. that was something I read quite some time ago too.

So that  why was breast cancer more prevalent in older women and now it is just as common in women in their early 30"s because they are not getting pregnant, having babies and nursing?  When i was having babies in the 60's and 70's nursing was not done that much.  I don't recall any of my friends doing it.   Could it be that hormones are being played with? I don't know just asking.  Just seems to me that since contraceptives have are being used by younger and younger women ( early teens for that matter) the number of breast cancers has risen. 

I am not against any ones right to contraceptives or their particular live style, i just don't think i should have to pay for it.  If what one chooses has consequences then i think they should live with it not me,  When it comes to abortion, then we are talking about another person here and then we are talking about a right to be alive.  big difference.

Abortions are what they would be supporting even more so by refusing to use an insurance plan that covers contraceptives. 

Here is the thing though. If the business offers an insurance plan they can have the women's health part of it as a "rider" that is optional and the employee can pay that section of it themselves. It says the insurance plan must cover womens stuff not that the employer has to pay for the part of the insurance plan that covers women's stuff.

When, that is a good idea but I would like to see a company offer a policy without the rider but have options that the person being covered could attach to the policy after the policy is purchased without involving the employer. Like after market parts for cars.  After the car has been purcahsed you can add on all the extras your heart desires. In the same way, the employer purchases the insurance policy, gives it to the employee who can then go to the insurance company and purchase add ons. That way the employer has no moral dilemma or conflict with their principles.

Bottom line to me is, again, you now, at this late date, are we all going to give in again to the over-extended US Gov't., another one of your God given Rights, guaranteed by our Constitution? Shame so many will, and without any fight nor conscience. Cause they really down deep, don't have any conscience, nor will to reproduce for the right reasons, and rightful humanity reasons. Thanks to Willy and Max for many cogent comments to me. This subject seems to tug too many in the false direction our forefathers wanted, and directed us to follow for a successful republic. Greed begets decay and moral insolvency, in the end.

 I call it willfull blindness. Many people just do not belive that our constitution is being shredded.  When a Supreme Court Justice tells the world not to look to the United States Constitution for guidance when crafting one for some of the new emerging governments, you can be sure that ours is not long for this world.  obama's childhood mentor was a communist. His grandpaarets were communist sympathizes. He was raised for this moment in time.  The first order of business to bring us down is to go after the Catholic Church and to take over our health care.  Look it up.  If obama gets another term, it all over but the shouting. ( name not capped by design).  It is all right here in front of us but people choose to buy into th hype spewed by Media Matters, Move on .org, Organizing for America to name a few.  Msnbc, ABC, NBC, CBS and yes even Fox News is not brave enough to call them on so many things.  BTW you should all look into seeing how many of our Congressmen and Senators are members of the Socialist Democratic Party.  A real eye opener.  Just think, our granchikdren will be watching the triumphant movie " The Rise and Fall of the United States of America" .  I can hear the liberal youth now " Oh,well"  " whatever".  Well, I say to them " You had a Republic, but you couldn't keep it". Sorry!

Well said Mary and Aquaman.

Unless youv'e been out there fightin' it or locked up by infirmity and out of the battle your'e going to have to take the blame for not keepin' it as well Mary.  But you don't sound like that type.  Great post.

I like that idea Willy, I don't think the employer should have to pay for the coverage, but they need to have it offered in some way so that those who want it can purchase it for themselves. But it needs to be available.

I find it very amusing that 31% are Catholics. 

"Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%;" it says. yet, the blue under it focuses on the lower percentage of 28 that the lower income have.

That right there tells that medicaid isnot paying for the majority of abortions because people in that income range can't get medicaid!

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service