Contraception

[_Bob Loblaw]

I keep hearing that we conservatives want to do away with contraception, but that is not the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... nC0eFJgmpA

The issue is whether the government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs.

[_beastie]

I keep hearing that we conservatives want to do away with contraception, but that is not the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... nC0eFJgmpA

The issue is whether the government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs.

I think you are underestimating the extreme right-wing of the republican party, to which Romney has been pandering (up to the debates, of course, when he violently swang toward the center). The "personhood amendment", which Romney said he would "absolutely" endorse would, indeed, effectively ban certain forms of birth control as well as all abortion.

Given the fact that Obama already engineered a compromise in regards to ACA, it seems that perhaps there is some other issue at play here.

[_just me]

If someone is depending on a certain hospital or their insurance provider shouldn't religion stay out of it?

I'm just trying to understand.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I think you are underestimating the extreme right-wing of the republican party, to which Romney has been pandering (up to the debates, of course, when he violently swang toward the center). The "personhood amendment", which Romney said he would "absolutely" endorse would, indeed, effectively ban certain forms of birth control as well as all abortion.

Given the fact that Obama already engineered a compromise in regards to ACA, it seems that perhaps there is some other issue at play here.

What was the compromise?

[_Drifting]

Two ducks in a hotel, the male duck (let's call him Drake) rang down to reception and asked for a condom to be sent up..."Would you like it on your bill sir?"

[_cinepro]

If someone is depending on a certain hospital or their insurance provider shouldn't religion stay out of it?

I'm just trying to understand.

I suspect it isn't a problem unless the hospital is owned by a church and something contradicts their religious principles.

For example, if the Jehovah's Witnesses owned a hospital, could they be required to provide blood transfusions?

[_Bob Loblaw]

If someone is depending on a certain hospital or their insurance provider shouldn't religion stay out of it?

I'm just trying to understand.

The issue is whether religious institutions should be required to provide services that violate their beliefs. In short, should a Catholic charity be required to provide contraception to its employees? The current administration says yes. The compromise, as it were, is that the coverage would go through the employers' insurance providers, thus only coming indirectly from the religious organizations. Here's a summary from the New York Times:

In January 2012, the Obama administration announced that as part of the rollout of the health care reform law, most health insurance plans must cover contraceptives for women free of charge.

The announcement of the new rule set off a political firestorm among religious and conservative groups, who denounced it as a threat to religious freedom. The rule does not apply to church organizations themselves, but instead to affiliated nonprofit corporations, like hospitals, that do not rely primarily on members of the faith as employees.

Before the announcement, 28 states had similar rules. The new regulation is meant to remove cost as a barrier to birth control, a longtime goal of advocates for women’s rights and experts on women’s health.

The 2010 health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them and the new rule was issued to spell out the details of this mandate. It requires coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B. The rule also requires coverage of sterilization procedures for women without co-payments or deductibles.

The administration rejected a request from the Roman Catholic Church for a broad exemption for insurance provided to employees of Catholic hospitals, colleges and charities, although it said it would give such church-affiliated organizations one additional year — until Aug. 1, 2013 — to comply with the requirement. Most other employers and insurers must comply by Aug. 1, 2012.

Catholic bishops issued a statement saying they would fight the “edict” from the government. “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Republican presidential candidates and conservative leaders sought to frame the rule as showing President Obama’s insensitivity to religious beliefs. Speaker John A. Boehner said that House Republicans would push legislation to challenge the policy.

Mr. Obama then unveiled what administration officials called an “accommodation.” Church-affiliated universities, hospitals and charities would not have to provide or pay for such coverage. Instead, the White House said, coverage for birth control could be offered to women directly by their employers’ insurance companies, “with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.”

But the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops said the compromise still infringed on the religious liberty and conscience of Catholics.

An effort by Congressional Republicans to block the policy failed. In May, 43 Roman Catholic dioceses, schools, social service agencies and other institutions filed lawsuits in 12 federal courts challenging the rule. At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed similar lawsuits.

[_just me]

The Catholic (or any religion) employer should not worry about what you do!

Why is it their business?

If the employer believes that vaccinations are evil they do not have the right to prevent you from having insurance that covers them.

There shouldn't even be health insurance or hospitals or pharmacies that refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives.

I'm surprised they aren't trying to drop coverage of PAP exams, too.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The Catholic (or any religion) employer should not worry about what you do!

Why is it their business?

If the employer believes that vaccinations are evil they do not have the right to prevent you from having insurance that covers them.

There shouldn't even be health insurance or hospitals or pharmacies that refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives.

I'm surprised they aren't trying to drop coverage of PAP exams, too.

They don't have the right to prevent you from getting insurance that covers contraception.

[_just me]

The Catholic (or any religion) employer should not worry about what you do!

Why is it their business?

If the employer believes that vaccinations are evil they do not have the right to prevent you from having insurance that covers them.

There shouldn't even be health insurance or hospitals or pharmacies that refuse to provide coverage for contraceptives.

I'm surprised they aren't trying to drop coverage of PAP exams, too.

They don't have the right to prevent you from getting insurance that covers contraception.

If I go elsewhere. So, my premiums would be triple what I can get through my employer.