Contraception

[_cinepro]

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

Does Catholic doctrine teach against PAP exams too? I hadn't heard that.

[_Bob Loblaw]

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

I'm not arguing with you over that. Providing contraception through insurance is reasonable and responsible. The issue is whether the government can force religious institutions to do something that violates their beliefs. As much as I disagree with the Catholic church on the issue of contraception, I think forcing them to go against their beliefs is an erosion of First Amendment rights.

[_just me]

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

Does Catholic doctrine teach against PAP exams too? I hadn't heard that.

Not that I know of, but they seem to have little regard for women's health issues.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Not that I know of, but they seem to have little regard for women's health issues.

Agreed, but should they be forced to do so, even if it violates their consciences?

The example cinepro gave is a good one: The JW proscription of blood transfusions is stupid and dangerous, but if they don't want to pay for blood transfusions, we should respect that.

[_just me]

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

I'm not arguing with you over that. Providing contraception through insurance is reasonable and responsible. The issue is whether the government can force religious institutions to do something that violates their beliefs. As much as I disagree with the Catholic church on the issue of contraception, I think forcing them to go against their beliefs is an erosion of First Amendment rights.

Asking that the employer not be allowed to dictate what is covered by the health insurance is not taking away their right to practice and preach their religion.

Basically, what is being argued is that the rights of women are less important than a religious employer being allowed to dictate what healthcare you get from the health insurance they provide.

If they were refusing to offer insurance that covered tumor removal because that was against their faith would we even be having this discussion? No. But, because the people affected are women we are having this debate.

I find that disgusting. If that is what America stands for it makes me want to move to Sweden.

[_just me]

Not that I know of, but they seem to have little regard for women's health issues.

Agreed, but should they be forced to do so, even if it violates their consciences?

The example cinepro gave is a good one: The JW proscription of blood transfusions is stupid and dangerous, but if they don't want to pay for blood transfusions, we should respect that.

I do not believe they have the right to dictate what is covered under a health insurance policy.

[_beastie]

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?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... stitutions

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, most health insurance plans will cover women’s preventive services, including contraception, without charging a co-pay or deductible beginning in August, 2012. This new law will save money for millions of Americans and ensure Americans nationwide get the high-quality care they need to stay healthy.

Today, President Obama will announce that his Administration will implement a policy that accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women. Today, nearly 99 percent of all women have used contraception at some point in their lives, but more than half of all women between the ages of 18-34 struggle to afford it.

Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accomodates important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:

• Under Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.

• Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:

o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.

o Establishes a one-year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.

• The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:

o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.

o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.

o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.

o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.

o The new policy does not affect existing state requirements concerning contraception coverage.

Covering contraception is cost neutral since it saves money by keeping women healthy and preventing spending on other health services. For example, there was no increase in premiums when contraception was added to the Federal Employees Health Benefit System and required of non-religious employers in Hawaii. One study found that covering contraception saved employees $97 per year, per employee.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I do not believe they have the right to dictate what is covered under a health insurance policy.

And I don't believe the government should dictate what religious institutions want to cover under their insurance policies.

[_Bob Loblaw]

In short, churches (as in houses of worship, etc.) don't have to pay for contraception, but non-church religious institutions, such as charities and universities, do (although they now have a year to implement the change).

Not much of a compromise.

[_just me]

I do not believe they have the right to dictate what is covered under a health insurance policy.

And I don't believe the government should dictate what religious institutions want to cover under their insurance policies.

Should an employer be able to dictate how an employee uses their paid vacation time?