Obama Administration Backs Off Contraceptive Mandate for Non-Profits
New guidelines in health care law reportedly would help non-profits maintain religious principles with regard to right-to-life issues, but doesn't change mandate for family-based businesses such as Hobby Lobby.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released a statement Friday announcing some new guidelines on the health care law from the Obama administration. These guidelines attempt to resolve the contentious contraceptive mandate in the health care law that has raised strong objection from such entities as religious hospitals and universities. CNN reports that 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 then 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 said on the new policy.
"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, Sebelius said. "We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women's organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals."
The move reportedly allows the religious organization to avoid paying for contraception. Last May, a group of Catholic organizations challenged the rules of the mandate as it then stood, but the administration always maintained the mandate did not violate religious liberties. The new proposal clarifies the definition of a religious employer.
CNN reports that the move is welcomed by women’s groups, including Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.
"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," Llyse Hogue, president of NARAL is reported as saying. "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.
The religious groups it is reportedly designed to accommodate, however, are maintaining a wait-and-see approach. Catholics United, a group that has been supportive of the administration, said it was a victory for the Obama administration and the Catholic Church, Fox News reports. However, Ave Marie University in Florida said its law suit would stand until they heard where the country’s Catholic bishops stood. According to Fox News, the school's president, Jim Towey, called the latest proposal a “provocation” and a “bizarre, new bureaucracy to obscure who exactly is paying for the abortion-inducing drugs and other services covered by the mandate.”
The new guidelines, also, do not change the situation for family-based business such as Hobby Lobby, which is currently challenging a ruling that denied its request for a waiver on religious grounds. Pro-lifer Susan B. Anthony List also expressed skepticism.
"There must be no religious 'test' by the government as to who, and what type of entities, are entitled to a conscience," she said, according to a Fox News report.
CNN reports these proposed updates will remain open for public comment until April 8, 2013, at which time the administration will decide whether or not to make them final.
What do you think, a step in the right direction, but not far enough? Or, it was fine as it was, the law has been passed and should be accepted?
Good Grief Y'all
7:26 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
You can't please everyone all the time and some never. Hobby Lobby is not a church or religious organization. It exists and operates for profit. Lots of businesses are owned and operated by people of faith. The "test" is based on how the entity is formed. If it's non-profit, it's not a business. Conscience is about more than religion, and it isn't a quality that can be granted or decided for anyone.
Good Grief Y'all
7:31 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
It was fine the way it was, but I'm good with the change, such as it is. If it stops some of the hand-wringing, angst and outrage, then great.
Kathlene M.
8:37 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
A private company should have the right to choose their policies and a woman who wants birth control has the right to work elsewhere or the right to pay for it herself or go to publicly funded places like Planned Parenthood. Isn't that what PP claims they are all about. This administration is about squashing freedoms and destroying the basics on which our country was built.
Good Grief Y'all
9:19 am on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Planned Parenthood facilities are being run out of town all over the country, so not readily accessible to all who need their services. Private companies don't have the right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. Bet Hobby Lobby is okay with their insurance policies covering Viagra. Taking Viagra can lead to sin, too ;)
Kathlene M.
12:45 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
So even with the billions of tax dollars being funneled into them each year PP is being "run out of town"? (Example, please?)
You are missing the point here, it is not whether a privately held and traded company wants to provide birth control or not or viagra or not, or mani/pedis. It is that a PRIVATE company has the right to make their own policies. They don't care if you are black, white, asian, hispanic, or any other nationality. Your choice to have sex is not their problem. If you want to work for a company that pays for your personal life then you have the right to choose to work for one that does. If you want Christians to stay out of your bedroom then stop dragging them into it.
Tammy Osier
1:29 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Kathleen, your post leaves me without adequate words. Great reply. Originally, in this country, insurance was only for catastrophic illness. Your average Dr. visit was about 10 bucks and medication was affordable. It was politics and desire for power and money that drove us to where we are right now. If anything has been driven out of town, it's common sense. No wonder it takes a civil war to fight for rights and freedom. Freedom is a wonderful thing and many want to deprive the masses of it for the sake of power and money. If a person or entity controls the government, they control the people.
Good Grief Y'all
3:23 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
I do believe medical professionals, providers and suppliers had something to do with the cost of their services and goods. Wouldn't that be anti-Republican ideology to suggest price controls imposed by government? Also, the for-profit middle man insurance industry plays a huge role in the cost of healthcare - free enterprise and all.
Ah, the good ol' 50s when everything was rosy, cheap and happy. I don't think that civil war thing should be revisited. There's no common sense in political paranoia.
Good Grief Y'all
1:54 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
http://www.ibtimes.com/house-republicans-seek-defund-planned-parenthood-npr-320500
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/house-gop-spending-bill_n_1681019.html
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/06/27/multiple-states-pass-bills-defunding-planned-parenthood/
"Federal funding is already banned from reproductive choice services, so all these bills do is help close down Planned Parenthood clinics that hundreds of thousands if not millions of women rely on for their care. Planned Parenthood is going to court to block a similar provision in Kansas’ next budget. But even if they succeed in beating back these attacks (and if the Indiana precedent holds they will), they will have spent millions defending themselves, money that could be better spent on women’s health. And they will continue to be a bugaboo, a polarizing force for the right to exploit."
Good Grief Y'all
1:58 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
I'm not missing any point. Private companies (businesses) can't discriminate on the basis of race, creed, nationality, physical disability, age or gender.
Employees earn and pay for their insurance coverage as it is a part of their pay/benefits package. Employers can't tell employees how to spend their paychecks and they shouldn't be able to tell them what insurance coverage is allowed. Employee health and safety is their problem - do they want unhealthy employees? I think not. Contraceptives are also used for medical treatment besides birth control. It is discrimination for the same employer to allow male sexual assistance drugs but deny female specific drug coverage.
Christian Conservatives are the faction actively camping out in America's bedrooms - maybe they should all move to Texas. Not all Christians are politically "conservative".
Chris P
2:45 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
The Federal government has no business in deciding what type of healthcare coverage a company provides to its employees.
Good Grief Y'all
3:27 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
It does if those companies expect tax breaks, credits and subsidies for that coverage, and if there's discrimination involved. Discrimination is anti-Constitution.
Chris P
5:26 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
Wrong. No discrimination involved and you know it!
Good Grief Y'all
6:45 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
It is discrimination for the same employer to allow male sexual assistance drugs but deny female specific drug coverage.
Chris P
11:49 am on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Then document it and if so show the reason why the insurer allows it.It may be that the insurer is allowing help with fertility treatments. I suspect your discrimination claim is in fact nothing more than a red herring.
Good Grief Y'all
2:04 pm on Sunday, February 3, 2013
Red herring seems to be the phrase of the week.
Reproductive health is about more than fertility and birth control. Pregnancy itself can and does bring on many complications, some of which are life threatening. Women's health issues have long been considered to be like pre-existing conditions.
Discrimination claim documentation isn't necessary as it is all too obvious and blatant, hence the discussion herein and the lawsuits - barring contraceptive coverage for females but allowing male sexual assistance drugs is self-explanatory discrimination.
U B ILL'N
1:07 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Responding to your comment about the government involved in healthcare. I used to think healthcare was one's responsibility to his family that he maintain coverage just as at one point in time a company looked at it as a healthy happy productive employee is worth the cost of the insurance. Now it appears that big business does indeed love this bill as they are not saying but its going bring their costs down as more and more of the cost shift is driven from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. There is a lot less variable cost for them and now that the public has been made aware of the "actual costs" of health insurance this transition gets easier and easier. I have sold and sell insurance p&c and health benefits and I can tell you at the small group level employers under 50 employees that average rate increases have 20% or more for the last 11 years. We eat worse, we work more, we have more debt. We cost more money in prescriptions every month then they take in premium and thats before the heart attack or cancer. Fact - we have the most expensive healthcare cost in the world with the worst outcomes. The outcomes being bad because of the affordability of the insurance for those that could have been treated in advance rather than putting it off til they could afford it. So lets stop talking socialism nonsense. When you are paying $2500 a month at age 63 likes some couples are. You tell me how much you will have left in retirement?
U B ILL'N
1:17 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
I will make anther point if you think your auto insurance rates are high now, guess what they would have been if it weren't "mandatory" to have. Hint; 20% driving 80% mass transit. For those that feel that the insurance off will be bad for them I will argue that you are already on an HMO or POS which is an HMO with an out of network benefit. Guess what that isn't changing. If you want better insurance you will be able to pay up for it on your own. But somehow i doubt that most of those complaining would be able to afford it.
U B ILL'N
1:26 pm on Wednesday, February 6, 2013
another point i will make while I am on my rant. if it is true that 40% of those working are not covered under health insurance. What would be the outcome for those working with them if an epidemic struck the US that was far worse than the FLU. So based on economics there is a price the insured will pay for those without insurance (where we are at now) which will reach a point of diminishing returns,ie healthy people leaving the system because of the expense(where we are at now) where by a tax or compulsion will be necessary to encourage more participation and lower over all rates. (where we are at now) Our current system is suffering because moral hazzard dictates that the sick will have to maintain health insurance while the healthy do not which when coupled with high unemployment and higher premiums will lead to higher and higher premiums for those left on. Why not make it social cost sharing much like that of our power companies and nat gas companies and car insurance that is the cost to be civilized.