Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Cont
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
:Obamacare Will Mandate Free Coverage of Abortion Drug & Contraception Without Religious Exemption:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 17361.html
John McCormack
January 20, 2012 2:03 PM
We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch, but the Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.
Religious organizations had pushed for a conscience exemption, but the Obama administration has denied their request. "The Obama administration will allow religious organizations a one-year delay before they must comply with a new rule requiring employers that offer workers health insurance to include access to contraception with no out-of-pocket cost," the Washington Post reports. That means that employers opposed to abortion--even Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities--will be required to provide health care coverage that they find morally objectionable. The Obamacare rule does retain a very narrow exemption for houses of worship.
As blogger Matthew Yglesias noted in August when the Obama administration first proposed this mandate, "the practical impact will be higher premiums, resulting in cross-subsidy of birth control by people who don’t use birth control." As Jeffrey H. Anderson wrote at the time:
nder Sebelius’s decree, anyone with cancer, a heart ailment, or a major injury will have to pay copays and deductibles, but anyone who wants to go on the pill or rent breastfeeding equipment won’t incur any personal cost — and nobody will be free to decide otherwise. In other words, certain forms of voluntary or elective care (the type of care that a lot of health insurance might well be expected not to cover at all, and once didn’t) will now be granted a status more favorable than is accorded serious medical conditions. Sebelius has turned things on their head — and imposed that inversion across the land. This is what politicized medicine looks like.
In all, Sebelius’s decree will prevent Americans from freely deciding what they want their own health policies to cover. It will force them to pay for other people’s care — even if they find that care to be morally objectionable. It will force those who have religious or moral objections to contraception to pay for contraception — including long-term contraception that many people now assume they can’t afford. And it will force even the most ardent pro-lifer to pay for abortion pills.
A Rasmussen poll from August found that 39% of voters favored forcing health insurers to cover contraception, while 46% were opposed and 15% were undecided. Though the contraception mandate is not terribly popular, it's not nearly as unpopular as Obamacare's coverage of taxpayer-funded abortions. A Quinnipiac poll conducted during the debate on Obamacare found that 72% of voters opposed using public funds to pay for abortions under Obamacare.
Update: The United States Council of Catholic bishops condemn the Obama administration's decision as "literally unconscionable":
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 17361.html
John McCormack
January 20, 2012 2:03 PM
We all know there is no such thing as a free lunch, but the Obama administration has decided to move forward with its mandate that private insurance companies must provide "free" coverage of contraception and sterilization procedures, as well as an abortion pill called "ella"--which is much friendlier sounding than its "close chemical relative" RU-486.
Religious organizations had pushed for a conscience exemption, but the Obama administration has denied their request. "The Obama administration will allow religious organizations a one-year delay before they must comply with a new rule requiring employers that offer workers health insurance to include access to contraception with no out-of-pocket cost," the Washington Post reports. That means that employers opposed to abortion--even Catholic schools, hospitals, and charities--will be required to provide health care coverage that they find morally objectionable. The Obamacare rule does retain a very narrow exemption for houses of worship.
As blogger Matthew Yglesias noted in August when the Obama administration first proposed this mandate, "the practical impact will be higher premiums, resulting in cross-subsidy of birth control by people who don’t use birth control." As Jeffrey H. Anderson wrote at the time:
nder Sebelius’s decree, anyone with cancer, a heart ailment, or a major injury will have to pay copays and deductibles, but anyone who wants to go on the pill or rent breastfeeding equipment won’t incur any personal cost — and nobody will be free to decide otherwise. In other words, certain forms of voluntary or elective care (the type of care that a lot of health insurance might well be expected not to cover at all, and once didn’t) will now be granted a status more favorable than is accorded serious medical conditions. Sebelius has turned things on their head — and imposed that inversion across the land. This is what politicized medicine looks like.
In all, Sebelius’s decree will prevent Americans from freely deciding what they want their own health policies to cover. It will force them to pay for other people’s care — even if they find that care to be morally objectionable. It will force those who have religious or moral objections to contraception to pay for contraception — including long-term contraception that many people now assume they can’t afford. And it will force even the most ardent pro-lifer to pay for abortion pills.
A Rasmussen poll from August found that 39% of voters favored forcing health insurers to cover contraception, while 46% were opposed and 15% were undecided. Though the contraception mandate is not terribly popular, it's not nearly as unpopular as Obamacare's coverage of taxpayer-funded abortions. A Quinnipiac poll conducted during the debate on Obamacare found that 72% of voters opposed using public funds to pay for abortions under Obamacare.
Update: The United States Council of Catholic bishops condemn the Obama administration's decision as "literally unconscionable":
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The cardinal-designate continued, “To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
The HHS rule requires that sterilization and contraception – including controversial abortifacients – be included among “preventive services” coverage in almost every healthcare plan available to Americans. “The government should not force Americans to act as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented at all costs,” added Cardinal-designate Dolan.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
No thanks.
Well if you actually took the time and linked to the story you would see that there are plenty of links to back this up and the weekly standard is a very credible publication.. A catholic college in NC is suing the federal gov over this as well.. But you sound like the typical leftist drone who can't think for themselves..
Pure class
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
If we are looking for why health care is so expensive in the us, here it is (this is not just Obama directed). We mix politics, religion, self righteousness and health care. It's not just health care here. How is this an insurable coverage?
weeklystandard
I did. I actually read the Weekly Standard quite frequently.
The Think Progress article simply stated that "free" birth control means higher premiums on those in the network/system.
The other links were to other Weekly Standard blogs and a statement by The United States Council of Catholic bishops, a group whose opinion I could not care less about.
The drug mentioned is being touted as an abortion drug is debatable. I'll have to do more research on it to be sure it is more of an abortion drug rather than just a drug similar to the morning after pill
The drug it references, "ella" can be used up to five days after sex. The previous, 'plan B', worked up to 3 days. RU-486 is effective up to 5 weeks after conception. I suppose most strict Catholics call any pill and 'abortion drug' if it allows for conception.
your credibility now = 0.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm just going to stop right here with this absolute fucking nonsense.
"OBAMACARE" IS NOT MANDATING COVERAGE OF ANY KIND OF ABORTION. IT ACTUALY SERIOUSLY FURTHER RESTRICTS ABORTION COVERAGE.
ELLA IS A CONTRACEPTIVE PILL - NOT AN ABORTION PILL - AND IS NOT USED AT ALL SIMILARLY TO RU-486.
I swear, it ought to be illegal to lie like that.
How is what insurable coverage? Contraception???
Just to clarify...
Ella is a contraceptive pill. It can only be used by women who are not pregnant. They say you can use it for 5 days after sex because its efficacy doesn't decrease during this time. Ella, like all methods of contraception, is covered by "Obamacare".
Plan B is a contraceptive pill. It can only be used by women who are not pregnant. Some say you can use it for 3 days after sex & that's because its efficacy decreases over time, so it's less effective after three days. It is actually used for 5 days after sex. (This information is important because many women get pregnant when it could have been avoided because they think they can't take Plan B past 3 days.) Plan B, like all methods of contraception, is covered by "Obamacare".
RU-486 is an abortion pill. It can only be taken by women who are pregnant, to end the pregnancy. Although the original FDA approval was for up to 7 weeks of pregnancy (counted from last menstrual period), most doctors actually use the "evidence-based" protocol, which allows for use up to 9 weeks of pregnancy. RU-486, like all methods of abortion, is not covered by "Obamacare".*
* Except in cases where the pregnancy was a result of rape or incest or when an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother - exceptions the federal government has made in abortion funding for decades.
Better access to birth control = fewer abortions.
Obamacare sucks because it does too little in order to appease the Right.
free competent medical care is a right that every human being should have access to. no matter the cost.
there i said it.
Communist!
I'm with you, but there's too much money involved, and money>people :(
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Exactly. And better access to birth control will also SAVE MONEY the costs of pregnancy, childbirth, & children's healthcare - which is an important reason to support this even for all those people who are anti-women.
As I said before, everyone should just stop reading right here, as this sentence tells us that the author is full of shit & therefore nothing else he says has any credibility. Ella is not any more an abortion pill than any other hormonal contraceptive, and yet this dumbfuck is trying to say it is. Also, no one still calls the abortion pill RU-486 except people who don't know enough about it to even know its real name.
This is misleading. Here's exactly what the policy says:
"Consistent with most States that have such exemptions, as described below, the amended regulations specify that, for purposes of this policy, a religious employer is one that: (1) Has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose; (2) primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets; (3) primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and (4) is a non-profit organization under section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code. Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) refer to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. The definition of religious employer, as set forth in the amended regulations, is based on existing definitions used by most States that exempt certain religious employers from having to comply with State law requirements to cover contraceptive services...The definition set forth here is intended to reasonably balance the extension of any coverage of contraceptive services under the HRSA Guidelines to as many women as possible, while respecting the unique relationship between certain religious employers and their employees in certain religious positions. Additionally, given "the Departments are waiving the 30-day delay in effective date of these amendments."
http://healthreform.kff.org/document-fi ... vices.aspx
Again, the author is intentionally using "contraception" & "abortion" interchangeably, as if it's necessarily true that contraception = abortion. Nowhere does he explain that this belief is not widely held & is contrary to medical definitions.
He conveniently fails to mention that every $1 spent on family planning saves $4-14 in other healthcare costs. He also fails to mention that men ("people who don't use birth control") also rely on & benefit from women's use of birth control. Plus, if he really takes issue with "cross-subsidy" of healthcare costs by people who don't use that care, why isn't he speaking up against me having to pay for Viagra, or diabetes care, or childhood immunizations?? Why is he protesting only contraception coverage & not the whole health insurance system in general?
First of all, healthcare premiums ARE personal costs, so it's bullshit to say that anyone won't have to incur any personal costs. Secondly, again, he's lying by omission. He has conveniently left out the part of the Affordable Care Act that says much more than just birth control & breast pumps are to be covered without co-pays. This includes services for men too - colonoscopies, blood pressure checks, childhood immunizations, HIV screening & counseling, screening & counseling for other STIs - and yet he's only calling for people to rally against the services for women. If his logic holds, it should be applied across the board.
This asshat is completely - intentionally - missing the whole fucking point, specifically so as to mislead the public about the real intention of these provisions: a shift toward preventive care. This has nothing to do with politicized medicine. He's the only one playing politics here, by misleading the public in a way that is counterproductive to the public's health, for the sole purpose of furthering his partisan agenda.
This decision to move toward preventive medicine was recommended by non-partisan group of medical & public health professionals who reviewed all the scientific evidence to figure out how to prevent these serious medical conditions about which the author feigns concern. The requirements aren't just about contraception or even women's health; they encompass all "Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force) with respect to the individual involved."
http://healthreform.kff.org/document-fi ... vices.aspx
(The recommendation report for the specific clinical preventive services for women can be found here: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Clinical-Preventive-Services-for-Women-Closing-the-Gaps.aspx
I don't have the link to the recommendation report for the other specific services handy, but I'm quite sure that Obama did not pull the idea that blood pressure screening is a useful preventive tool out of his ass as part of an evil plot to politicize medicine.) If prevention is politicized medicine, I wonder what this author thinks real medicine looks like - and why he thinks it shouldn't include the evidence-based recommendations of health professionals.
We are already prevented from freely deciding what we want our own health policies to cover & forced to pay for other people's care - even the care we find to be morally objectionable. That's the way health insurance works, the way it's worked since long before Obama or Sebelius, under both Democrats & Republicans. How on earth he can blame Obama or Sebelius for that is beyond me. It's not even new for those who have moral objections to contraception to have to pay for contraception. Every person whose employee health insurance covers contraception - or circumcision, or HIV treatment, or Viagra, or whatever - has to pay for that stuff whether they object or not. And this idea to mandate contraception coverage isn't new either; 28 states already required insurance companies to cover contraception. (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/ ... 0801b.html)
The federal government has not (except under rare circumstances) paid for abortions since the Hyde Amendment to the annual Health & Human Services appropriation bill was originally passed in 1976. Despite the agreement that the Affordable Care Act not be used to alter abortion policy, the Catholic Bishops threatened to pull their support unless it was changed to specifically, significantly increase restrictions on women's ability to get legal abortions. It was therefore amended to not only prohibit federal funding of abortion, but to also prevent private insurance coverage of abortion in many cases. Here's what it does:
"- Ensure that federal premium or cost-sharing subsidies are not used to purchase coverage for abortion if coverage extends beyond saving the life of the woman or cases of rape or incest (Hyde amendment). If an individual who receives federal assistance purchases coverage in a plan that chooses to cover abortion services beyond those for which federal funds are permitted, those federal subsidy funds (for premiums or cost-sharing) must not be used for the purchase of the abortion coverage and must be segregated from private premium payments or state funds.
- Permit states to prohibit plans participating in the Exchange from providing coverage for abortions.
- Require plans that choose to offer coverage for abortions beyond those for which federal funds are permitted (to save the life of the woman and in cases of rape or incest) in states that allow such coverage to create allocation accounts for segregating premium payments for coverage of abortion services from premium payments for coverage for all other services to ensure that no federal premium or cost-sharing subsidies are used to pay for the abortion coverage. Plans must also estimate the actuarial value of covering abortions by taking into account the cost of the abortion benefit (valued at no less than $1 per enrollee per month) and cannot take into account any savings that might be reaped as a result of the abortions. Prohibit plans participating in the Exchanges from discriminating against any provider because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.
- Prohibit abortion coverage from being required as part of the essential health benefits package."
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
See above, where I just quoted that the Affordable Care Act specifically prohibits abortifacients from being covered. This amendment was made at the demand of and with full participation from the United States Council of Catholic Bishops, who felt it was satisfactory enough for them allow it to pass.
Nobody is acting as if pregnancy is a disease to be prevented a all costs. :roll: Family planning is a huge public health issue with serious medical implications. The increased risk of poor health outcomes for unintended pregnancies is well-documented in the medical evidence and the World Health Organization emphasizes the importance of birth spacing:
"After a live birth, the recommended interval before attempting the next pregnancy is at least 24 months in order to reduce the risk of adverse maternal, peri-natal and infant outcomes.... After a miscarriage or induced abortion, the recom-mended minimum interval to next pregnancy is at least six months in order to reduce risks of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes."
http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adole ... pacing.pdf