Feds: Religious employers must cover the pill
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46076912/ns ... yK21iM70Xg
WASHINGTON — Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.
In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
"I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," Sebelius said in a statement.
Yet the concession was unlikely to stop a determined effort by opponents to block or overturn the rule. If they fail, some predicted that religious employers would simply drop coverage for their workers, opting instead to pay fines to the federal government under the health care law.
"Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," said New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."
Officials said the administration's ruling was carefully considered, after reviewing more than 200,000 comments from interested parties and the public. The one-year extension, they said, responds to concerns raised by religious employers about making adjustments. Administration officials stressed that individual decisions about whether or not to use birth control, and what kind, remain in the hands of women and their doctors.
Underscoring the sensitivity of the decision, Obama personally spoke with Dolan on Friday to inform him of the announcement, an administration official said.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerhouse law firm based in Washington that tackles religious freedom issues, predicted in a statement that religious groups "will never pay for abortion drugs in violation of their religious beliefs." Many religious conservatives consider the morning-after birth control pill to be an abortion drug.
Liberals and women's rights groups praised the decision, saying that women who work for religious employers should not have to accept a lower standard of health coverage.
"The administration stood firm," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "As a result millions will get access to contraception, and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission."
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a member of Senate leadership, said, "The president made the right decision by putting access and the reproductive rights of women first."
Birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, and most health insurance plans cover the pill, usually with copays. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.
At issue is a provision of the health care law that requires insurance plans to cover preventive care for women free of charge to the employee. Last year, an advisory panel from the respected Institute of Medicine recommended including birth control on the list, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.
Sebelius agreed, issuing a new federal regulation last summer.
That rule, however, exempted houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places would not be required to cover contraceptives, it specified.
It was a different story for religious-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies.
Although many of those employers had not traditionally covered birth control, the new regulation required them to do so. Catholic hospitals, which at a critical moment had defied the bishops to back Obama's health care law in Congress, immediately sought a broader exemption. On Friday they were denied.
Representing some 600 hospitals, the Catholic Health Association expressed disappointment.
"The challenge that these regulations posed for many groups remains unresolved," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the group. "This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions."
The administration says between 1 million and 2 million people work for religious-affiliated institutions, though it's not clear how many would be affected. Some states already require religious employers to cover the pill.
For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect August 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting January 1, 2014.
Women working for secular enterprises from profit-making companies to government will have access to the new coverage starting January 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 as tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.
However, the new regulation does not require coverage of abortions.
WASHINGTON — Many church-affiliated institutions will have to cover free birth control for employees, the Obama administration announced Friday in an election-year move that outraged religious groups, fueling a national debate about the reach of government.
In a concession, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said nonprofit institutions such as church-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies will have one additional year to comply with the requirement, issued in regulations under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
"I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services," Sebelius said in a statement.
Yet the concession was unlikely to stop a determined effort by opponents to block or overturn the rule. If they fail, some predicted that religious employers would simply drop coverage for their workers, opting instead to pay fines to the federal government under the health care law.
"Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience," said New York Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "This shouldn't happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights."
Officials said the administration's ruling was carefully considered, after reviewing more than 200,000 comments from interested parties and the public. The one-year extension, they said, responds to concerns raised by religious employers about making adjustments. Administration officials stressed that individual decisions about whether or not to use birth control, and what kind, remain in the hands of women and their doctors.
Underscoring the sensitivity of the decision, Obama personally spoke with Dolan on Friday to inform him of the announcement, an administration official said.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a powerhouse law firm based in Washington that tackles religious freedom issues, predicted in a statement that religious groups "will never pay for abortion drugs in violation of their religious beliefs." Many religious conservatives consider the morning-after birth control pill to be an abortion drug.
Liberals and women's rights groups praised the decision, saying that women who work for religious employers should not have to accept a lower standard of health coverage.
"The administration stood firm," said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "As a result millions will get access to contraception, and they will not have to ask their bosses for permission."
Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, a member of Senate leadership, said, "The president made the right decision by putting access and the reproductive rights of women first."
Birth control use is virtually universal in the United States, and most health insurance plans cover the pill, usually with copays. Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned.
At issue is a provision of the health care law that requires insurance plans to cover preventive care for women free of charge to the employee. Last year, an advisory panel from the respected Institute of Medicine recommended including birth control on the list, partly because it promotes maternal and child health by allowing women to space their pregnancies.
Sebelius agreed, issuing a new federal regulation last summer.
That rule, however, exempted houses of worship and their employees, as well as other institutions whose primary purpose is to promote religious belief. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places would not be required to cover contraceptives, it specified.
It was a different story for religious-affiliated hospitals, colleges and social service agencies.
Although many of those employers had not traditionally covered birth control, the new regulation required them to do so. Catholic hospitals, which at a critical moment had defied the bishops to back Obama's health care law in Congress, immediately sought a broader exemption. On Friday they were denied.
Representing some 600 hospitals, the Catholic Health Association expressed disappointment.
"The challenge that these regulations posed for many groups remains unresolved," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the group. "This indicates the need for an effective national conversation on the appropriate conscience protections in our pluralistic society, which has always respected the role of religions."
The administration says between 1 million and 2 million people work for religious-affiliated institutions, though it's not clear how many would be affected. Some states already require religious employers to cover the pill.
For religious-affiliated employers, the requirement will take effect August 1, 2013, and their workers in most cases will have access to coverage starting January 1, 2014.
Women working for secular enterprises from profit-making companies to government will have access to the new coverage starting January 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 as tantamount to an abortion drug by some religious conservatives.
However, the new regulation does not require coverage of abortions.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
-
the government should protect religious freedom, not oppress it.
thats the one part of the healthcare bill i cant defend.
ill leave it at that.RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 20 -
The government IS protecting religious freedom here. There're not letting employers impose their own beliefs upon all their employees by denying employees affordable access to preventative healthcare services based solely upon the employer's own religious beliefs.0
-
_ wrote:The government IS protecting religious freedom here. There're not letting employers impose their own beliefs upon all their employees by denying employees affordable access to preventative healthcare services based solely upon the employer's own religious beliefs.
but doing so defies the idea of property rights. Why should the govt be protecting one group's religious freedom over another? if it were a govt employer, youd be absolutely right. Its private employers, so, according to the Constitution, youre absolutely wrong. We must respect peoples rights to their own property. Always.
You can choose where you work.RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 20 -
WaveRyder wrote:_ wrote:The government IS protecting religious freedom here. There're not letting employers impose their own beliefs upon all their employees by denying employees affordable access to preventative healthcare services based solely upon the employer's own religious beliefs.
but doing so defies the idea of property rights. Why should the govt be protecting one group's religious freedom over another? if it were a govt employer, youd be absolutely right. Its private employers, so, according to the Constitution, youre absolutely wrong. We must respect peoples rights to their own property. Always.
You can choose where you work.
I disagree. And are you saying they can they also refuse to provide coverage for ANYTHING?
What about employers that are supported by taxpayer funds? And what about insurance plans that are subsidized by the government? What about non-profits that are tax exempt?Post edited by _ on0 -
Good.
My body belongs to me, not my employer.
Im glad we're finally realizing that your employer doesn't own you. Or most of us realize that, anyway.0 -
Health insurance should not be supplied by employers. It's one of the big reasons we're in the mess we have now.The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.0 -
know1 wrote:Health insurance should not be supplied by employers. It's one of the big reasons we're in the mess we have now.
As someone who grew up in Canada, I mow how much better our system was than the clusterfuck we have down here. But the drug companies and hospital corporations will pour billions into scaring people away from it. Because they make trillions giving poor health care.0 -
_ wrote:WaveRyder wrote:_ wrote:The government IS protecting religious freedom here. There're not letting employers impose their own beliefs upon all their employees by denying employees affordable access to preventative healthcare services based solely upon the employer's own religious beliefs.
but doing so defies the idea of property rights. Why should the govt be protecting one group's religious freedom over another? if it were a govt employer, youd be absolutely right. Its private employers, so, according to the Constitution, youre absolutely wrong. We must respect peoples rights to their own property. Always.
You can choose where you work.
I disagree. And are you saying they can they also refuse to provide coverage for ANYTHING?
yes. a private employer doesnt have to offer healthcare insurance at all. Duh. I worked at tace bell in high school. they didnt offer insurance to anybody.RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 20 -
WaveRider... I really hope you're not saying that employees are the employer's "property."
The fact remains that an employer should never be able to decide which health care treatments should be used for their employees. They shouldn't be able to say "we won't treat your diabetes, you should just eat less candy." Nor should they they "we won't pay for Chemo therapy, get yourself some pot and prepare for the inevitable."
I shouldn't have to call my boss from an emergency room and say "is it OK if I get this knife taken out of my back?"
You either provide health care or you don't. You can't selectively decide which procedures your employees can have. That should be up to you and your doctor, not your insurance company and your boss.0 -
As an employer I could not even look at health applications of my employees
I could not know any of their prior health history
they would come to me to visit about troubles
and I would have to say sorry I can not know your private issues concerning
your health
this includes mental health issues0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:WaveRider... I really hope you're not saying that employees are the employer's "property."
The fact remains that an employer should never be able to decide which health care treatments should be used for their employees. They shouldn't be able to say "we won't treat your diabetes, you should just eat less candy." Nor should they they "we won't pay for Chemo therapy, get yourself some pot and prepare for the inevitable."
I shouldn't have to call my boss from an emergency room and say "is it OK if I get this knife taken out of my back?"
You either provide health care or you don't. You can't selectively decide which procedures your employees can have. That should be up to you and your doctor, not your insurance company and your boss.
Of course you can decide what coverage you offer your employees. Just as you can decide how much you want to pay them. Comprehensive health care is a benefit of employment, if you don't like the coverage, go work somewhere else. Just as if you don't think you are being paid enough, go work somewhere else. The irony here is something like this will only hurt the employees. An employer comes up with a dollar amount they are willing to pay for an employee. With government mandated health insurance add-ons, that is only going to come out of your salary. That 7.5% FICA tax that your employer pays on your behalf, do you really think that is coming out of their pocket? Nope, the labor market is almost entirely inelastic meaning the tax on the labor market goes right to the consumer.0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
You either provide health care or you don't. You can't selectively decide which procedures your employees can have. That should be up to you and your doctor, not your insurance company and your boss.
Well, that probably should be the case, but it certainly isn't the case in reality. Every insurance plan decides what it will and will not cover.hippiemom = goodness0 -
cincybearcat wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
You either provide health care or you don't. You can't selectively decide which procedures your employees can have. That should be up to you and your doctor, not your insurance company and your boss.
Well, that probably should be the case, but it certainly isn't the case in reality. Every insurance plan decides what it will and will not cover.
I'm not sure about that.
I was offered add-ons like dentistry and and optometrist. But for basic health care, I was given a dollar amount, not "we won't treat this or that."0 -
Prince Of Dorkness wrote:cincybearcat wrote:Prince Of Dorkness wrote:
You either provide health care or you don't. You can't selectively decide which procedures your employees can have. That should be up to you and your doctor, not your insurance company and your boss.
Well, that probably should be the case, but it certainly isn't the case in reality. Every insurance plan decides what it will and will not cover.
I'm not sure about that.
I was offered add-ons like dentistry and and optometrist. But for basic health care, I was given a dollar amount, not "we won't treat this or that."
"Every" was a poor choice. My point being that most company insurance plans do pick and choose what is covered and how much, etc. Most that I am aware of it more accurate.hippiemom = goodness0 -
i agree with the administration on this.
additionally, these pharmacies that refuse to fill scripts for the pill or the morning after pill on moral or religious grounds should be forced to. it is not the pharmacist's responsiblilty to dictate whether or not the patient gets the prescribed medications. it is their job to carry out the doctor's orders, and by doing so, fill and dispense the damn prescription..
rant over...."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
when i was covering the legislative session in my home state. this issue came up. the state tried mandating that employers offering health insurance cover contraceptives. One of the largest employers in the state is Catholic Hospital. The hospitals representatives stated that even with a mandate, they simply wouldnt do it. It goes against freedom of religion. imposing someone elses beliefs on another should not be ok. and as far as the pharmacy goes, find a different pharmacy. if its a privately run firm, they can choose what products to offer and which ones they dont. Its called free enterprise.
and in capacity as an employee, the employer does own you. if your earning a wage, your being owned. You can quit, however. Slaves couldnt, and they didnt get paid.RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 20 -
Nobody is telling a Catholic Hospital they have to do anything.
Hey, knock yourself out... stop giving drugs and instead just cover the patients with leeches and tell them to "pray harder" to make their seizures go away. I hear you can stop teenage boys from masturbating by circumcising them and feeding them Kellog's Corn Flakes.
But if the Catholic Church is going to run a hospital they should be made to offer every legal treatment or not get government money of any kind. Don't like it? Choose not to be a Catholic. Simple as that.
We no longer throw people of different religions to the lions. You're free to choose.
And no, WaveRider... your employer does NOT own you. I pay my staff to do work for me. I buy their services from them. I do not buy their souls and I do not buy their personal lives. Nor do I get a say in how their doctors treat their illnesses.0 -
church blows...literallyPost edited by chadwick onfor poetry through the ceiling. ISBN: 1 4241 8840 7
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce0 -
Jeanwah wrote:WaveRyder wrote:
and in capacity as an employee, the employer does own you. if your earning a wage, your being owned. You can quit, however.
There's something seriously wrong with this kind of thinking.
what i meant is, if your are getting paid to do a service, you cant tell your employer "how it is." They can, however, tell you "how it is." If you dont like it, you can quit. So i guess i should have said, while your on the clock, your employer owns you, or is renting you....however you'd like to put it.RC, SoDak 1998 - KC 2000 - Council Bluffs IA 2003 - Fargo ND 2003 - St. Paul MN 2003 - Alpine Valley 2003 - St Louis MO 2004 - Kissimmee FLA 2004 - Winnipeg 2005 - Thunder Bay 2005 - Chicago 2006 - Grand Rapids MI 2006 - Denver CO 2006 - Lollapalooza 2007 - Bonnaroo 2008 - Austin City Limits 2009 - Los Angeles 2009 - KC 2010 - St Louis MO 2010 - PJ20 Night 1 - PJ20 Night 20
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help