Contraception mandate outrages religious groups

[Dave]

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

[Lisa O'Brien]

As far as tax payers paying for their abortion- we as tax payers pay for a lot of things I'm sure we disagree with. Personally I believe if you get any sort of government assistance or use any service the government provides you should have to prove you are a U.S. citizen or at least here legally. But that is not the case. So for me in the grand scheme of things if a woman on medicaid wants an abortion - I wouldn't begrudge it. There are a lot of right to lifer's that are against abortion but think nothing of complaining about all the people on welfare.

[Willy]

I have to disagree with you Lisa. No-one is denying a woman's right to abortion even tho it goes against their beliefs. They just don't want to participate in the abortion by paying for it. There is a great distinction here between agreeing with abortion and helping someone to abort a pregnancy. We're not talking about foot surgery which may help someone from loosing their leg, we're talking about a voluntary procedure to kill a fetus. I definitely see a difference here. This is but one of many  divisions and dilemmas  that we face when Government takes control of our health care. And it's one thing to have an abortion to save a womans life from medical complications but you know as well as I do that 99.99% of abortions are for birth control and I don't want my tax dollars paying for that. Now where is my right to be "free" of that?

[Sweater Cows!]

Just to be a bit comical...

Since the person choosing to use an abortion or birth control is not basing that choice on religious belief (where those against it are) then the person who is choosing it is not involving religion so you are free of there religion as the choice is anything if not religious. lol

[masonco]

I posted some real life examples later in this thread

[masonco]

And because of "reimbursement issues" (ObamaCare mandates) I see elderly being denied expensive life saving medications (they are back ordered), children and adults unable to get cancer medications because the drug companies are losing $$$ on them and in turn not making the medications. Not sure if it was on NBC or CBS where they did the news documentary this week about medications that increased success rates in kids with Leukemia will be unavailable by next week The doctor asked how should he tell the parents that the cancer their child has is curable, but the medication for the cancer is unavailable so their baby may not survive.

Yet those on Medicare are now forced to pay for abortions of those in inner city abortion clinics. How can people not see that these abortion mandates are to pay for those in inner cities who go for pregnancy counseling and end up aborting the minority (unwanted) baby? Talk about discrimination. Those who are (were) middle class already had access to abortions so who is kidding who? Then of course everyone forgets that there are those who would like to have adopted that aborted baby if it had been allowed to live.

[Lisa O'Brien]

So in essence you want to keep women from inner cities from having abortions, since the middle class can afford  to pay for them their selves. 

[Willy]

I tell you what Lisa I'll pay for abortions if chastity belts are mandatory until people are able to emotionally and financially support the children they give birth to. Because asking me to pay for other peoples immoral life styles and poor decision making is about as silly as my chastity belt requirement.

[Max]

"So in essence you want to keep women from inner cities from having abortions, since the middle class can afford  to pay for them their selves. "

Saying someone wants to keep anyone from getting an abortion because they won't pay for it is like saying you are keeping me from driving because you won't buy me a new car.

[masonco]

No I am not saying I want to discriminate against women in that way. I AM saying that it is much easier to eradicate those living in the inner city (usually the blacks, white druggies, immigrants legal and illegal) by "convincing them" they have a "right" to eliminate that baby which in turn will reduce the number of uneducated minorities.  What other reason are they pushing free abortions in inner cities where most are not educated? It is history after all

[masonco]

Oh and while at it, they are already exterminating elderly and those with chronic disease by decreasing medicare reimbursement, increasing costs for the elderly, and of course making cancer medications "scarce". Those cancer meds that ran out this week had 80% cure rate for KIDS with leukemia usually under the age of 10.

Take the doctors job and tell those parents their child will not live because the money went for the "morning after" pills which is where the pharmacudical companies make their profit now. Oh and be the one to have to explain to that otherwise healthy 60 year old their medication is "backordered" because the pharmacudical companies are limiting their production of the Parkinson's medication...Why? because their is no profit in making those medications and of course it is too costly to care for that person with chronic disease.

While at it, tell the senior on oxygen they can not have travel tanks because medicare no longer covers it...or they can not have hearing aids and glasses because medicare does not cover them any more...BUT their co-pays and premiums are almost 1/2 their income now. PLUS their premiums went up to pay for those "FREE" inner city abortions. I can who you the MEDICARE statement that show the coverage is increase to cover abortions and birth control and pre natal counseling...Ummm how many people over 65 need those services?

Want more true life examples of how this is discriminating against those who are not rich?

[Mary G]

 google Margaret Sanger, the founder of planned parenthood.  You will find out that it is based on the ideology of eugenics.  Eugenics was the ideology of Hitler to eliminate the undesirable in the world and to control the population. She was a eugenicist.   Masonco is correct.  Haven't you all heard about turning 70 and obama care. We will henceforth be referred to as "Units"  and our care or how much care we will receive will be decided by a " Panel".  Sound familiar?  Sarah was also right. All care will be based on what or how much we contribute to the "common good". There really is a blue pill and a red pill.                                                                                                                        Before the election I tried to warn people about Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals but was dismissed by those who thought he was just a hippy who died in the 80's..   Our president was a guest lecturer at Univ. of Illinois ( he was not a college professor) , His subject?  

Wait for it .................................................... the teachings of Saul Alinsky !  Get the book, read it and you will figure it all out, just as plain as the nose on your face !!!!!  Look at who they demonize and you will see who they are trying to get rid of.  The teachers union members have been " encouraged " to read this book.  

[Sweater Cows!]

Actually, My sister lives in the hood and from what she has told me(not statistics just her experience) Blacks and Latinos are way less likely to get abortions than middle class (whites).

I think abortion is a white thing more than others as well as more often done by those of wealthier background.