Aa
Obama proposal would let religious groups opt-out of contraception mandate
Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration proposed new guidelines on Friday that would allow women to receive contraception coverage at no charge and without violating employer religious concerns, and give those entities an avenue for opting out the mandate, a shift in federal healthcare policy.
The new plan attempts to resolve the contentious issue of how non-profit organizations, such as religious hospitals and universities, can decline to provide contraception coverage to their employees on religious grounds without facing a penalty.
"Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
"We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women's organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals," she said.
Experts: Make the pill an OTC drug
Hobby Lobby takes on Obamacare
Boehner: Obamacare on the table
As part of the new initiative, groups that are insured -- such as student health plans at religious colleges -- would be required to let their insurer know that certain participants would like contraception coverage. The provider would pay for the contraception separately.
"The insurer would then notify enrollees that it is providing them with no-cost contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies," an HHS statement on the new policy said on Friday.
The move would allow the religious organization to avoid paying for contraception.
Case fuels debate over when life begins
The original mandate on providing contraception was part of the new federal healthcare law spearheaded by President Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act.
It required that insurers provide, at no cost to those insured, all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Houses of worship were exempt immediately and the administration widened those exemptions last year to include other religiously affiliated organizations, like universities and hospitals.
That still left groups across a wide spectrum of faiths, many of which teach that contraception is morally wrong, covered by the mandate. They denounced it as an infringement of religious liberty. A group of 43 Catholic organizations challenged the rules in federal court in May.
The administration had long defended the mandate, saying that it did not violate religious liberties.
The new proposal also clarifies the definition of a religious employer.
Instead of using a multi-part test that requires an employer to show "religious values as its purpose" and to "employ persons who share its religious tenets," the mandate would follow the International Revenue Code's definition that includes "churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations."
In March, after an uproar among religious institutions that didn't want to pay for contraceptives, the Obama administration offered several alternative suggestions. The proposal offered on Friday is a result of that effort.
Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person
The proposed update will be open for public comment through April 8, 2013. The administration would then decide whether to make it final.
A source with knowledge of the matter but not authorized to speak on the record said administration officials would discuss the new plan with faith-based organizations later on Friday.
The source also said the administration called key leaders, including presidents of Catholic universities, before the announcement.
Women's groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, heralded the announcement.
"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL. "Thanks to this commitment, most American women will get birth control coverage without extra expense."
"This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, took a wait-and-see approach.
"Today, the administration issued proposed regulations regarding the HHS mandate" he said in a statement. "We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely. We look forward to issuing a more detailed statement later."
CNN's Jessica Yellin, Eric Marrapodi and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/religion-contraceptive-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
The new plan attempts to resolve the contentious issue of how non-profit organizations, such as religious hospitals and universities, can decline to provide contraception coverage to their employees on religious grounds without facing a penalty.
"Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement.
"We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women's organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals," she said.
Experts: Make the pill an OTC drug
Hobby Lobby takes on Obamacare
Boehner: Obamacare on the table
As part of the new initiative, groups that are insured -- such as student health plans at religious colleges -- would be required to let their insurer know that certain participants would like contraception coverage. The provider would pay for the contraception separately.
"The insurer would then notify enrollees that it is providing them with no-cost contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies," an HHS statement on the new policy said on Friday.
The move would allow the religious organization to avoid paying for contraception.
Case fuels debate over when life begins
The original mandate on providing contraception was part of the new federal healthcare law spearheaded by President Barack Obama, the Affordable Care Act.
It required that insurers provide, at no cost to those insured, all forms of contraception approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
Houses of worship were exempt immediately and the administration widened those exemptions last year to include other religiously affiliated organizations, like universities and hospitals.
That still left groups across a wide spectrum of faiths, many of which teach that contraception is morally wrong, covered by the mandate. They denounced it as an infringement of religious liberty. A group of 43 Catholic organizations challenged the rules in federal court in May.
The administration had long defended the mandate, saying that it did not violate religious liberties.
The new proposal also clarifies the definition of a religious employer.
Instead of using a multi-part test that requires an employer to show "religious values as its purpose" and to "employ persons who share its religious tenets," the mandate would follow the International Revenue Code's definition that includes "churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations."
In March, after an uproar among religious institutions that didn't want to pay for contraceptives, the Obama administration offered several alternative suggestions. The proposal offered on Friday is a result of that effort.
Lawyers for Catholic hospital argue that a fetus is not a person
The proposed update will be open for public comment through April 8, 2013. The administration would then decide whether to make it final.
A source with knowledge of the matter but not authorized to speak on the record said administration officials would discuss the new plan with faith-based organizations later on Friday.
The source also said the administration called key leaders, including presidents of Catholic universities, before the announcement.
Women's groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America, heralded the announcement.
"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL. "Thanks to this commitment, most American women will get birth control coverage without extra expense."
"This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, took a wait-and-see approach.
"Today, the administration issued proposed regulations regarding the HHS mandate" he said in a statement. "We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely. We look forward to issuing a more detailed statement later."
CNN's Jessica Yellin, Eric Marrapodi and Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/politics/religion-contraceptive-insurance/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
I hear what you are saying. I do think that some people in this country choose to work for these organizations *because of or partially because of who they are. You don't hear a lot of complaining from the employees of these institutions. So, I don't know how big of a problem this really is for people other than the principle of it that you are speaking of.
But regardless of how you feel about it and I feel about it and all others feel about it, I do really like that our govt. leaders are trying to be respectful and sensitive. I mean, I REALLY appreciate that. This is how change happens and if they can allow people to receive their healthcare while a religious institution can uphold its principles--- well, I think that is great. That's compromise. That's trying to work with people. That's moving things in the right direction. I like it.
Also, teko. As to people thinking liberals are not religious or immoral---- I've not heard that nor have I ever thought that. I do think that our society is getting more and more immoral over time in general and this is encouraged through our media and acceptance of anything goes. Takes quite a bit to be shocking these days.
But regardless of how you feel about it and I feel about it and all others feel about it, I do really like that our govt. leaders are trying to be respectful and sensitive. I mean, I REALLY appreciate that. This is how change happens and if they can allow people to receive their healthcare while a religious institution can uphold its principles--- well, I think that is great. That's compromise. That's trying to work with people. That's moving things in the right direction. I like it.
Also, teko. As to people thinking liberals are not religious or immoral---- I've not heard that nor have I ever thought that. I do think that our society is getting more and more immoral over time in general and this is encouraged through our media and acceptance of anything goes. Takes quite a bit to be shocking these days.
Agreeing to disagree is a positive thing! I like that it doesn't get ugly between us
I know the conversation changed as a result of the discussion. And honestly, that part is more interesting to me..lol.
I think what bothers me is this. We both live in countries that have so many different religions and cultural backgrounds represented. It's one of the things I love about both our countries - the diversity. And we can all think of countries where the laws are based on one specific religion. Typically, it leads to oppression and often outright violations of what we would consider basic human rights. So I feel very strongly that laws should never ever be based on a religious belief - not in any way, shape or form. If we start creating exemptions and laws to please one specific religious belief, I think that takes away from the freedoms we are entitled to and enjoy.
For me birth control is a basic human right. Every individual or family should have the right to determine the amount of children they have and when to have them. I think all of us can agree on that. And although some Christian religions are officially against BC, many that practice these religions still use BC. We know that. So for me, exempting certain business from this program is dictating that only the most devout Christians can work there. I think that is really really wrong. If this health care proposal goes through, all aspects of health should be covered, and I don't feel there should be any exemptions. It can then be up to the individual whether or not to access that specific allowance. I would be very very angry is this exemption was applied here. I work for a Christian organization - we were founded by the Church. But we have people of all religious and cultural backgrounds that work there and there is not a single health exemption based on religious belief. That would be considered very discrimanatory here, and would be a huge problem.
Just my feelings on the issue.
I know the conversation changed as a result of the discussion. And honestly, that part is more interesting to me..lol.
I think what bothers me is this. We both live in countries that have so many different religions and cultural backgrounds represented. It's one of the things I love about both our countries - the diversity. And we can all think of countries where the laws are based on one specific religion. Typically, it leads to oppression and often outright violations of what we would consider basic human rights. So I feel very strongly that laws should never ever be based on a religious belief - not in any way, shape or form. If we start creating exemptions and laws to please one specific religious belief, I think that takes away from the freedoms we are entitled to and enjoy.
For me birth control is a basic human right. Every individual or family should have the right to determine the amount of children they have and when to have them. I think all of us can agree on that. And although some Christian religions are officially against BC, many that practice these religions still use BC. We know that. So for me, exempting certain business from this program is dictating that only the most devout Christians can work there. I think that is really really wrong. If this health care proposal goes through, all aspects of health should be covered, and I don't feel there should be any exemptions. It can then be up to the individual whether or not to access that specific allowance. I would be very very angry is this exemption was applied here. I work for a Christian organization - we were founded by the Church. But we have people of all religious and cultural backgrounds that work there and there is not a single health exemption based on religious belief. That would be considered very discrimanatory here, and would be a huge problem.
Just my feelings on the issue.
"You can please some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time." Amen
No matter what programs they come up with, there will be those that don't like them.
No matter what programs they come up with, there will be those that don't like them.
I agree with adgal and I too look at contraception as a health issue. I also agree with sm in that it would appear to be a win win for all concerned. I also agree with points everyone else has made. But there is an old saying that rings so true here. You can please some of the people some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. Now the argument will revert back to how America is going down the toilet in a moral way and its not right.
I think we need to start separating the bible from the constitution and do what is right for the people as a whole because this is one of those no win situations.
I am still trying to figure out where people get the idea that those who are not republican or who utilize and agree with freedoms is somehow immoral or not christian or not religious. This seems to be a constant re inforced myth in our time.
I think we need to start separating the bible from the constitution and do what is right for the people as a whole because this is one of those no win situations.
I am still trying to figure out where people get the idea that those who are not republican or who utilize and agree with freedoms is somehow immoral or not christian or not religious. This seems to be a constant re inforced myth in our time.
You and I have had many discussions over the years on our different opinions regarding healthcare and I love that we have never once become heated over it. :>)
On this particular aspect, I understand how you feel and can't say I'm not far behind you in thought, however, this mandate to provide contraceptives (and for some of these institutions it is more about emergency contraceptives) is a change. Change often has push back. What I was intially reading in the above is that the Obama administration was being sensitive to that. Backing off of forcing this piece of the healthcare act that is controversial and causing the religiuos right to be upset. And at the same time, they were figuring out ways so that if employees of these institutions want birth control, they can still have it provided.
I liked what i was initially reading as it seemed to be a win win.
So while I am not surprised about anyone's opinions here regarding religious institutions having to provide contraceptives (emergency or otherwise)-- I didn't think that was what this article was about. Although it then seemed to turn into that in the end.
I wonder if a bunch of nuns high fived when they found out they can get their birth control paid for with the ACA.
On this particular aspect, I understand how you feel and can't say I'm not far behind you in thought, however, this mandate to provide contraceptives (and for some of these institutions it is more about emergency contraceptives) is a change. Change often has push back. What I was intially reading in the above is that the Obama administration was being sensitive to that. Backing off of forcing this piece of the healthcare act that is controversial and causing the religiuos right to be upset. And at the same time, they were figuring out ways so that if employees of these institutions want birth control, they can still have it provided.
I liked what i was initially reading as it seemed to be a win win.
So while I am not surprised about anyone's opinions here regarding religious institutions having to provide contraceptives (emergency or otherwise)-- I didn't think that was what this article was about. Although it then seemed to turn into that in the end.
I wonder if a bunch of nuns high fived when they found out they can get their birth control paid for with the ACA.
I agree with adgal Best post ever. I'm writing my heart out and the Canadian gets it in two lines. Do you have an extra room? I love Canada! I'll learn to love Hockey! ;)
Great post
Great post
I do not Believe that contraceptives are that much if a religious belief. I always believe in the individual's moral belief; however, when my son came home and screamed " mom! Obama is forcing women to take birth control!!!" I said " well look out for your nuts next, they cause all the problem" it was a long night.
I taught my kids young, condom use and birth control. My daughter is almost 25 and watched all her friends (from a very, upper middle class predominately Catholic neighborhood) all have babies before they were married.
Btw, she is agnostic. I guess she can be forced to be intelligent.
I taught my kids young, condom use and birth control. My daughter is almost 25 and watched all her friends (from a very, upper middle class predominately Catholic neighborhood) all have babies before they were married.
Btw, she is agnostic. I guess she can be forced to be intelligent.
I wish we could opt out of legal policies here in Canada based on religion. I would start a religion that considers paying any taxes a violation of my religious beliefs. Think that would fly?
I'm sorry, but I also consider contraception a health issue and coverage is coverage. This exempt clause is hard for me....I don't think it's right. Just don't. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but I also consider contraception a health issue and coverage is coverage. This exempt clause is hard for me....I don't think it's right. Just don't. Sorry.
Are you sitting down, specialmom? Because I agree with you that the article is confusing, and I too feel that I am missing something.
This whole issue disturbs me a little because the of subject matter. Family planning can be critical to a woman's health. While I understand that many faiths do not support the use of contraceptives, I still don't see why their employees should not have health insurance for their entire bodies, including their reproductive health, if they so choose.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not permitted to have blood transfusions, yet I never heard anyone suggest that they can pare down their employees' health insurance to exclude coverage for transfusion.
This whole issue disturbs me a little because the of subject matter. Family planning can be critical to a woman's health. While I understand that many faiths do not support the use of contraceptives, I still don't see why their employees should not have health insurance for their entire bodies, including their reproductive health, if they so choose.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not permitted to have blood transfusions, yet I never heard anyone suggest that they can pare down their employees' health insurance to exclude coverage for transfusion.
Whew, I'm trying to understand this. When I first was reading, I thought it said that religious owned and operated institutions and businesses would be able to opt out and that Obama was offering something up that should make them happy. Employees can get their contraceptives elsewhere or in some other way than their providing it. Kind of a win win. But by the end, it felt as if I was missing something.
"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL. "Thanks to this commitment, most American women will get birth control coverage without extra expense."
"This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America....
"This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control," said Cecile Richards, President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America....
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
