Skip to comments.Nuns Must Have Birth Control Coverage
Posted on 02/02/2013 10:08:03 AM PST by NYer
The Obama Administration has really pulled a fast one. In its proposed rule to supposedly provide greater protections to non house of worship religious organizations opposed to contraception, it actually ensures that contraception coverage will be provided to all religious employees–whether house of worship, convent, or school. In other words, the proposed rule expands the government’s intrusion into religious affairs, rather than reduce it.
Here’s how they plan to do it:
1. From now on no distinction will be made in the rule between “house of worship” employers and general religious organization employers. In order to be exempted from the requirement of providing free contraception, sterilization, and (possibly) abortifacients, under the current rule, the non profit had to be, essentially, a house of worship or a monastic community. That requirement will be deleted. Under the proposed rule, all bona fide non profit religious organizations will be treated the same. From the Notice of Proposed Rule Making:
For purposes of these proposed rules only, the Departments propose to define an eligible organization as an organization that meets all of the following criteria: The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered under section 2713 of the PHS Act on account of religious objections.The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.The organization holds itself out as a religious organization. The organization self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria, as described later in this section.
On the surface, that would seem better, since the rule will make no distinction between Sisters of Mercy as an order and the Sisters of Mercy High School. That would be true if the exemption originally granted to houses of worship allowing them to not cover birth control at all, had been expanded to include organizations such as charities and schools. But that isn’t what the government is proposing at all.
2. The existing total exemption for houses of worship, etc., has been eliminated. There used to be two tiers of religious organizations under the rule. The first–houses of worship–were completely exempted from having their employees covered for free birth control. The second, religious organizations, were not exempted. That’s what set off the brouhaha. Now all qualifying religious organizations receive the same accommodation. But it is not an exemption..
3. The Health Insurance Company Must Pay for Birth Control for All Religious Employees: From the text:
These proposed rules aim to provide women with contraceptive coverage without cost sharing and to protect eligible organizations from having to contract, arrange, pay, or refer for contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds…[T]hese proposed rules would provide that, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan would assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants and beneficiaries…
The issuer would automatically enroll plan participants and beneficiaries in a separate individual health insurance policy that covers recommended contraceptive services.
So, let’s say that the Sisters of Mercy have 150 employees. They must receive birth control coverage. They just don’t pay for it. But simply by being covered with health insurance, their carrier will be required to automatically enroll all employees for birth control under a separate policy on the corporate dime.
Thus, nuns will have birth control coverage whether they like it or not, and a private company will be forced to provide the coverage to religious organizations for free, coverage they can charge for in other contexts. A double dose of authoritarianism.
I will be looking more deeply into this and writing at greater length. But it seems to me that the Obama Administration has used the contraception controversy to extend its cultural imperialism deeper into the religious realm.
In evaluating the Obama administration’s “logic”, how long before it requires that lesbians have birth control coverage?
But why? Why shouldn't women who want contraceptives, etc., pay some of the costs? Women who want knee surgery or diabetes drugs pay some of the costs, and men, apparently, will still be required to pay for their own contraceptives or sterilizations, as well as actual medical care.
Do we, as a society, really think sterile sex for women is the most important aspect of medical care, such that it should be totally cost-free to the user? I don't think we do.
Insteresting how Obama presses on female rights. Will Obama make condoms a freebie for the male?
The Sisters Of Perpetual Frustration will be very happy with this dictate from the Obama regime. (snicker)
Correct me if I am wrong, but it requires it now. Where is in the HHS ukase (in either version) an exemption for people whose sexual practices cannot result in a pregnancy? I can start a company and hire 50 Sebelius-certified lesbians, and I still will have to pay for the mandate.
Because sex without children is a positive human right.
Then shouldn't anti-child measures be cost-free to all, not just to women?
(I'm just beating my head against this idiocy because I'm in a bad mood, not actually trying to get reasonable answers ;-).
You're asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is What difference does it make?
Here is what Im up to ;
Democrats and RINOS
GOD DENIERS AND CONGENITAL LIARS
ARE REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH INCITERS/
FOR FIRST YOUR MONEY THEN YOUR GUNS
AND BE DEFENSELESS WHEN CROOKS COME
It’s time to get government out of Your face
Your religion and your pocketbook
(The above is designed to be printed up and passed around your precinct and your friends and neighbors as a (index sized) palmcard.
You have to look at it from the perspective of the socialistic government we have in place, not from the perspective of the woman. The current American government believes in population control and simply does not want women to have babies. It’s not so much that they believe women should pay for their own contraception as it is they don’t TRUST women to pay for their own contraception. The idea is if it is provided for free than they will use it and there will be fewer American babies.
To a liberal socialist children are a great burden to both the feminist movement and to society in general. The priority is to prevent their conception and if that doesn’t work abort them, then the government won’t have to provide for them when they age. It is the way to achieve the ever elusive utopia.
Beam me up, Scottie......
That is already the case, without the HHS mandate. U.S. on Pace for Slowest Decade of Population Growth Since 1930s
In fact, Americans are now turning their attention to ...
You are correct, but they desire to slow population growth even more than it has been slowed. In their minds ( warped as they are) there are still too many children being born. Remember Cass Sustein? He advocates for adding contraceptives the the water supply. The best way to get Americans to comply is to force them into it without their knowledge.. scary stuff.
Wow ... never heard of Cass Sustein. His reasoning may be off, though, given that so many people prefer to drink bottled water. Still, adding contraceptives to the water supply is alarming. Thanks for the ping.
Lets see how the White house likes my idea:
I would like to make a birth control device. It will be hermietically sealed, and it will branded as “Catholic Church only”
Follow me here for a minute...
Each one of these mystery devices costs $20,000. The United States Government will have to buy one or more per week.
100% of the money recieved is donated to the church.
Upon receiving the $20,000 package, the owner opens it and eats it’s content: A celebratory mint that freshens your breath and reminds you of how you just beat the anti-christian, communist scum bags at their own game.
Who’s with me ?
Welcome to Acirema, where everything is backwards. Apparently, neither of my two Senators or my Rep have any problem with rewarding criminals and punishing law-abiding citizens. But then again, they are al Communists.
The bigger question is, why do you only have religious freedom if you are a religous worker or religous employer?
Why does a parishoner have fewer religious liberties in the eye of the state than the priest?
Demolsheviks have no respect for any of the numerated rights. Except of the right to marry your dog and kill babies, I can’t think of any rights that the left supports at all.
That will be right around the same time that females get mandatory prostate exams starting at age 16... and men are mandated to be immunized with Gardasil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.