Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 18:59:51 GMT -5
I don't know but it will be interesting. Found a link that may answer your question but no time to read it all right now so sorry if it is not be helpful. State contraceptive mandates widespread but not as broad as HHS plan By Nancy Frazier O'Brien Catholic News Service WASHINGTON (CNS) -- In more than half of the states, Catholic officials have been living for years with mandates that health insurance plans must cover FDA-approved contraceptives in their prescription drug plans. Seventeen of the 28 states that require contraception coverage have some sort of religious exemption for employers, but few of the exemptions are quite as narrow as the one proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services when it announced Aug. 1 that contraceptives and sterilization will be among the mandated preventive services for women under the new health reform law. Under the proposal, only religious employers meeting four criteria would be exempt from providing contraceptives and female sterilization through their health plans. Those requirements are that the organization "(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 nonprofit organization" under specific sections of the Internal Revenue Code. An HHS spokeswoman told Catholic News Service that all four criteria must be met in order for the religious exemption to apply. She said the HHS exemption was based on "the most commonly used" wording in seven states, but said she could not name the seven states involved. Religious freedom experts say the HHS exemption could leave out faith-based social service agencies, health care providers and even Catholic schools and colleges with majority non-Catholic enrollment. www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103146.htm
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 19:36:02 GMT -5
I understand the church's aversion to the birth control pill and morning after pill and any other form that can terminate a fertilized egg If you can tell me what common disease is treated by the morning after pill, we can continue this discussion.
Perhaps we should just go back the the discussion about death panels. As I posted earlier, the regulation specifically states that the morning after pill is not included and I didn't post earlier but non-medically required abortions are not included either.
But intentionally provoking the Catholic Church into doing so is quite foolish. I am far from a political conservative, but this could swing my vote.
I'm sure the pubs count on people like yourself to vote against the dems without ever understanding why. The day the Catholic church moved beyond religion and got into secular business like hospitals and universities was the day they had to start playing by the same rules as every other hospital and university.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 7, 2012 19:36:20 GMT -5
Oh, boo hoo! So the church has to offer a service in their health plan that most of their followers use anyway. If they can't find something more important to whine about they should have their heads checked.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 19:42:14 GMT -5
"If they can't find something more important to whine about they should have their heads checked. "
You're right. As long as freedoms are erroded slowly, it's no big deal.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 7, 2012 19:46:25 GMT -5
Their freedoms aren't being eroded. As long as they're acting like a church, they fall under the exception. It's when the church starts operating businesses who's main purpose isn't preaching to the faithful or what have you, that they have to follow the rules that all other businesses do. When exactly did religious institutions get the right to operate non religious businesses under special rules? And even if they did, why the hell would anyone care if they're taken away? Free and fair markets, and all that stuff, right?
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 19:56:32 GMT -5
You're right. As long as freedoms are erroded slowly, it's no big deal.
Exactly, which is why they government is standing up to Catholic hospitals and universities and forcing them to respect the rights of non-Catholics in their employ. Good catch IB.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 20:12:46 GMT -5
"Their freedoms aren't being eroded. As long as they're acting like a church, they fall under the exception."
This has nothing to do with whether an entity is a church or not. It has to do with forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do.
------------------------------------------------- "Exactly, which is why they government is standing up to Catholic hospitals and universities and forcing them to respect the rights of non-Catholics in their employ."
Nobody has a right to employer-paid healthcare, let alone employer-paid birth control. An entity, Catholic or secular, is not denying someone any Constitutional rights by chosing to cover some things and not others.
------------------------------------------------------- "Free and fair markets, and all that stuff, right?"
Yes. That includes the freedom to decide to offer whatever employee benefits they want to.
|
|
kittensaver
Junior Associate
We cannot do great things. We can only do small things with great love. - Mother Teresa
Joined: Nov 22, 2011 16:16:36 GMT -5
Posts: 7,983
|
Post by kittensaver on Feb 7, 2012 20:21:51 GMT -5
"Their freedoms aren't being eroded. As long as they're acting like a church, they fall under the exception." This has nothing to do with whether an entity is a church or not. It has to do with forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do. ------------------------------------------------- "Exactly, which is why they government is standing up to Catholic hospitals and universities and forcing them to respect the rights of non-Catholics in their employ." Nobody has a right to employer-paid healthcare, let alone employer-paid birth control. An entity, Catholic or secular, is not denying someone any Constitutional rights by chosing to cover some things and not others. ------------------------------------------------------- "Free and fair markets, and all that stuff, right?" Yes. That includes the freedom to decide to offer whatever employee benefits they want to. All very true until the advent of mandated national healthcare in 2014. Then the game changes completely. The Catholics are merely starting now to fight this.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 20:46:14 GMT -5
Nobody has a right to employer-paid healthcare, let alone employer-paid birth control. An entity, Catholic or secular, is not denying someone any Constitutional rights by chosing to cover some things and not others.
So you are claiming that States and the Fed can't legislate rights for citizens? Twenty-eight states have passed legislation requiring birth control to be included in all health insurance plans sold in their state, every citizen of that state unless covered by a legislated exception has the right to covered birth control under any health insurance plan purchased in that state. Nobody has the right to employer paid health care BUT when provided by an employer the insured has the right to covered birth control if legislation dictates it. In this case, religious organizations are exempt, Catholic hospitals and universities are not.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 21:12:42 GMT -5
They can. In this case I don't want them to. Whether it is Constitutional or not, I'm not the expert.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 21:16:11 GMT -5
In my view any women has a right to an abortion but a hospital religious or not has a right to refuse to do it. Same with birth control. If a person chooses to use birth control that is their right but the government nor no one else has a right to say who has to provide it. Refusing to provide it under a health care plan does not impede a person to make that choice. Birth control pills are not a valid medical expense. Why this is in the health care bill in the first place is beyond me. Smacks of Eugenics. Like China are they next going to say you can only have one child? Crazy.
|
|
zipity
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 0:32:17 GMT -5
Posts: 1,101
|
Post by zipity on Feb 7, 2012 21:31:06 GMT -5
Contraception was included as a required preventive service on the recommendation of the independent, nonprofit Institute of Medicine and other medical experts because it is essential to the health of women and families. Access to birth control is directly linked to declines in maternal and infant mortality, can reduce the risk of ovarian cancer, and is linked to overall good health outcomes. Nationwide, 1.5 million women use contraceptives only as treatment for serious medical conditions. Most importantly, broadening access to birth control will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, a goal we all should share. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204136404577207482497075436.html?mod=googlenews_wsjBirth control pills are a valid medical expense, this was just one link explaining why. A quick google search turns up plenty of pages of links for anyone that really wants to understand the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 21:49:46 GMT -5
...Birth control pills are not a valid medical expense... oh no you di'n't
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 22:07:48 GMT -5
Crafty Sara Did I step in it? ;D
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 22:16:07 GMT -5
Handyma, you really should know better by now.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 22:22:38 GMT -5
OK well I will spend one night in the dog house. Will that be due penance.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Feb 7, 2012 22:32:06 GMT -5
This has nothing to do with whether an entity is a church or not. It has to do with forcing people to do stuff they don't want to do. All laws make people do stuff they don't want to do. You think I like paying taxes? Not banging my hot married neighbors? Going the speed limit? Not punching people in the face when they obviously deserve it? So the Catholic church has to follow the same rules as everybody else in their non church institutions, big fraking deal! If they don't like it, they're free to stick to being a church and get exemptions for everything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 22:43:42 GMT -5
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The bill is requiring Roman Catholic organizations to BUY birth control for their employees and to pay for sterilization. Obama's rules do not allow Roman Catholic Organizations to buy health plans without coverage for sterilization and birth control. According to traditional church doctrine, God, not man, is the author of life and as such actions such as birth control, sterilization, euthanasia, executions and suicide are all condemned. Whether you agree or disagree, the probable result of the refusal of the Obama regime to allow a religious exemption is that the Church will suspend ALL medical coverage on its employees and pay the fines instead. This would be perverse. superficially, this sounds like a difficult choice. however, since the "fine" for opting out is something like $50/month, it doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice to me.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 7, 2012 23:18:50 GMT -5
DJ I have to agree with you on that. It would be a lot less expensive for them. There are other religious hospitals that feel the same way. This could end up at the supreme court. Obama just gave the opposition a lot of ammo to use against him.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 7, 2012 23:21:45 GMT -5
Why this is in the health care bill in the first place is beyond me. Smacks of Eugenics. Like China are they next going to say you can only have one child? Crazy. You are kidding, right? You are seriously comparing offering birth control to women who want it to the forced sterilization of people who were deemed unfit to reproduce?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:29:18 GMT -5
DJ I have to agree with you on that. It would be a lot less expensive for them. There are other religious hospitals that feel the same way. This could end up at the supreme court. Obama just gave the opposition a lot of ammo to use against him. indeed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2012 23:33:50 GMT -5
No, I'm afraid you are mistaken. The bill is requiring Roman Catholic organizations to BUY birth control for their employees and to pay for sterilization. Obama's rules do not allow Roman Catholic Organizations to buy health plans without coverage for sterilization and birth control. According to traditional church doctrine, God, not man, is the author of life and as such actions such as birth control, sterilization, euthanasia, executions and suicide are all condemned. Whether you agree or disagree, the probable result of the refusal of the Obama regime to allow a religious exemption is that the Church will suspend ALL medical coverage on its employees and pay the fines instead. This would be perverse. superficially, this sounds like a difficult choice. however, since the "fine" for opting out is something like $50/month, it doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice to me. How many companies/unions were allowed exemptions from Obama care again? "get the gov out of my uterus" unless it it's "free" then please, come right in.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Feb 7, 2012 23:41:08 GMT -5
superficially, this sounds like a difficult choice. however, since the "fine" for opting out is something like $50/month, it doesn't seem like a huge sacrifice to me. How many companies/unions were allowed exemptions from Obama care again? "get the gov out of my uterus" unless it it's "free" then please, come right in. i think all can choose to be exempt by acting in contempt of ObamaCare and paying the totally toothless fine. it is an easy loophole. i expect a lot of organizations to take it.
|
|
Phoenix84
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 17, 2011 21:42:35 GMT -5
Posts: 10,056
|
Post by Phoenix84 on Feb 8, 2012 4:06:56 GMT -5
it's strictly forbidden for the government to "compel" any religious organization to do anything. It's a very scary situation when the government gets involved in what you can and can't do in a religion.
I'm confident this will be challenged in court in overturned. The SC recently ruled that employee protections don't apply to employees of religious organizations because the government cannot force relgious institutions to do anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 5:41:15 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 8:18:47 GMT -5
"If the church pays the fines, no big deal, but it will leave the employees to buy their own health coverage. That represents a huge cut in salary."
Businesses compete with eachother. All else being equal, a business that doesn't offer heath coverage will have to pay higher salaries.
--------------------------------------------- "So the Catholic church has to follow the same rules as everybody else in their non church institutions, big fraking deal!"
What part of "This has nothing to do with whether an entity is a church or not," did you not understand? Yes, laws make people do things they don't want to do. By your rationale, it's ok make a law that says people must wear shoes 24/7.
------------------------------------------------------ "Birth control pills are a valid medical expense, this was just one link explaining why."
So is aspirin. Saying they are a legit medical expense is irrelevant.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,443
|
Post by thyme4change on Feb 8, 2012 8:37:02 GMT -5
I'm not sure all of those things are laws.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Feb 8, 2012 8:49:23 GMT -5
28 states mandate contraceptive coverage already. 8 of those states have no exemptions.Obama exempted churches and is now saying he will look at expanding them. Will this supercede states rights and will exemptions be mandated?
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Feb 8, 2012 9:58:13 GMT -5
why can't they have "religious based" plans and "secular based" plans and let employers and or employees choose which one they want?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 8, 2012 12:04:18 GMT -5
------------------------------------------------------ "Birth control pills are a valid medical expense, this was just one link explaining why." So is aspirin. Saying they are a legit medical expense is irrelevant. Aspirin is available OTC. If BC pills were available OTC, then you could compare the two. But, otherwise your comparison sucks.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Feb 8, 2012 12:09:07 GMT -5
it's strictly forbidden for the government to "compel" any religious organization to do anything. It's a very scary situation when the government gets involved in what you can and can't do in a religion. All the govt is saying is if you offer health insurance, it has to meet the same minimum standards as other companies have to meet. I'm sure that religious organizations have to follow most federal govt regs - labor laws, OSHA standards, EPA standards, . There might be a few exceptions & it sounds like following FMLA was one of them (I don't know the details of that case). But, to say they should be able to do whatever they want is ridiculous. The only question is where do you draw the line & given over half the states already have this regulation, I think it is acceptable.
|
|