War against Women

[MyReality]

So lately the media and internet have been overwhelmed with recent legislations that are sadly passing into law that can be said to go against womens rights. Especially in Arizona where Jan Brewer is (CRAZY!) extreme on determining the sexual practices of women in the state. I will post laws passing only from the beginning of 2012 otherwise their would be to much to talk about. Mainly from Arizona.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/12/j ... M6Y.reddit

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer Signs Legislation Permitting Employers to Interrogate Female Employees About Contraception Use

Arizona Bans Funding to Planned Parenthood
PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Arizona already bars use of public money for abortions except to save the life of the mother. But anti-abortion legislators and other supporters of the bill say the broader prohibition is needed to ensure no public money indirectly supports abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.
The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session.
PHOENIX (AP) – Gov. Jan Brewer on Friday signed into law a bill to cut off Planned Parenthood's access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.
Planned Parenthood Arizona claims a funding ban would interrupt its preventive health care and family planning services for nearly 20,000 women served by the organization's clinics. The organization says it will consider a legal challenge.


The measure targeting funding for Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services was one of several approved by Arizona's Republican-led Legislature related to contentious reproductive health care issues this session

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/1 ... 15715.html

Arizona Abortion Bill: Legislators Pass Three Bills, Including One That Redefines When Life Begins


Arizona lawmakers gave final passage to three anti-abortion bills Tuesday afternoon, including one that declares pregnancies in the state begin two weeks before conception.
The Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill to prohibit abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy; a bill to protect doctors from being sued if they withhold health information about a pregnancy that could cause a woman to seek an abortion; and a bill to mandate that how school curriculums address the topic of unwanted pregnancies.

The other two bills passed by the House include the state's "wrongful birth, wrongful life" bill that prohibits lawsuits against doctors who do not provide information about a fetus' health if that information could lead to an abortion. In addition, parents cannot sue on the child's behalf after birth.

The third bill requires that schools teach students that adoption and birth are the most acceptable outcomes for an unwanted pregnancy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 44557.html

Arizona legislators have advanced an unprecedented bill that would require women who wish to have their contraception covered by their health insurance plans to prove to their employers that they are taking it to treat medical conditions. The bill also makes it easier for Arizona employers to fire a woman for using birth control to prevent pregnancy despite the employer's moral objection.

Arizona is a right to work state, which makes it all the scarier.

Jan Brewers reasoning behind these bands are on religious grounds, which can be read in the sites above.

In Virginia:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/vi ... wanted=all

Gov. Bob McDonnell demanded the revisions last week, and their acceptance on Tuesday all but assured the state’s adoption of the ultrasound requirement. The original bill set off protests from women’s groups and others. Some critics called it “state rape,� and the plan was mocked on television comedy shows.

In Alabama, the sponsor of a bill to strengthen an existing ultrasound requirement said on Monday that he would seek a revision softening the bill. The existing bill mandates that the screen must face the pregnant woman and requires use of the scanning method that provides the clearest image — which would mean vaginal ultrasounds in most cases.

As a result, the bills under active consideration in several states, including Pennsylvania and Mississippi, require detailed fetal images that would in practice require many patients to have vaginal ultrasounds.

Such a requirement has been in effect since early this month in Texas with little of the outcry seen in Virginia. Similar laws adopted in Oklahoma and North Carolina are now blocked by federal court order until their constitutionality is determined.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/03 ... tock-bill/

The bill as first proposed outlawed all abortions after 20 weeks under all circumstances. After negotiations with the Senate, the House passed a revised HB 954 that makes an exemption for “medically futile� pregnancies or those in which the woman’s life or health is threatened.

If this makes its seem like Rep. England and the rest of the representatives looked beyond their cows and pigs and recognized women as capable, full-thinking human beings, think again: HB 954 excludes a woman’s “emotional or mental condition,� which means women suffering from mental illness would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. It also ignores pregnant women who are suicidal and driven to inflict harm on themselves because of their unwanted pregnancy.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... -murdered/

House Bill 3517 [PDF], the so-called “embryo bill,� allows prosecutors to levy charges of assault or murder if an embryo is harmed or killed. The bill excludes consensual “medical or surgical procedures,� although it removes existing language that would specifically exempt “abortion.� Given Tennessee’s long history of fetal rights legislation, the bill raises some speculation as to whether the “embryo bill� is a step toward declaring “fetal personhood.�

The “embryo bill� expands on two previous laws. The first allowed a murder or assault charge for harm to a “viable� fetus, defined as one 32 weeks or older, which has been the precedent in Tennessee since 1989. The second, passed in 2011, removed the word “viable� to cover a fetus at any age.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legis ... challenge/

The Texas law is more strict: It requires women to have a sonogram at least 24 hours ahead of an abortion, and the doctor to play the heartbeat aloud, describe the fetus, and show the woman the image, unless she chooses not to view it. Although the Texas law doesn’t specify what kind of ultrasound — belly or transvaginal — abortion providers say they almost always must use the transvaginal probe to pick up the heartbeat and describe the fetus at the early stage of pregnancy when most women seek abortions.

http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/04/24/ ... t-pay.html

SC health plan would not pay for abortions involving rape, incest under new proposal

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2012/04 ... in-danger/

On the final day to review general bills, the Mississippi Senate Public Health Committee passed HB 1390, which requires doctors performing abortions to be board-certified OB-GYNs with hospital admitting privileges. Although it sounds reasonable, HB 1390 is another affront to women’s reproductive rights when you factor in the already meager resources available to the women of Mississippi.

ITS ONLY BEEN 5 MONTHS! What the hell is going on? I know that the forums have been saturated lately with abortion threads but im going to make this a new one with all the above material for the use of Pro-Choicers and Pro-Lifers. I think every single one of these is going wayyyyyyy to far. Who here can argue the justification to keep this trend going? How far do you think it will go before we start going back even further in time when it comes to womens rights?

[Uijboo]

“In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? In other words, it's not about the Catholics contracting health services with, oh...Kaiser Permanente or something, where Kaiser offers a range of plans and the Catholics pick one that best fits their needs.

This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion. Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.

How many of these Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured, or otherwise, and take public funds? I only ask because one of your other comments suggest that Catholics should obey the government if they take it's cash.

For my part, I fear being legally forced to support something I find morally objectionable.

Let me give you a specific example. The state of Illinois recently legalized homosexual unions.

Catholic Charities was one of the largest groups helping orphaned and abused children in the state. The state then said that Catholic Charities had to include homosexual couples in their foster care and adoption program.

Catholic Charities said that this would violate their consciences, but they would refer homosexual couples to other agencies in the state that also did foster care and adoption work.

Yes, and the KKK Charities said that it would violate their consciences to include mixed race couples. Your point?

Did the KKK have charities? Ah, well....makes no matter; if they were getting public funds, they have to go by public rules. (shrug) Taking government funds is making a deal with the devil; the golden rule becomes 'he who has the gold makes the rules.'

BUT---my concern is for those services, businesses and charities that do NOT accept public funds, or who accept such funds only when they are attached to specific clients, the way Pell Grants and student loans are.

[dianaiad]

“In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? In other words, it's not about the Catholics contracting health services with, oh...Kaiser Permanente or something, where Kaiser offers a range of plans and the Catholics pick one that best fits their needs.

This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion. Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.

How many of these Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured, or otherwise, and take public funds? I only ask because one of your other comments suggest that Catholics should obey the government if they take it's cash.

Those comments also answer your question. If they take public funds, they need to follow public rules. If they don't...then the government should have no say. It is, in my opinion, EXTREMELY unconstitutional to force a self-insured religious group to provide services that are against their beliefs. That is considerably closer to 'establishing a religion' than any posting of the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall.

[Uijboo]

“In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? In other words, it's not about the Catholics contracting health services with, oh...Kaiser Permanente or something, where Kaiser offers a range of plans and the Catholics pick one that best fits their needs.

This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion. Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.

How many of these Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured, or otherwise, and take public funds? I only ask because one of your other comments suggest that Catholics should obey the government if they take it's cash.

Those comments also answer your question. If they take public funds, they need to follow public rules. If they don't...then the government should have no say. It is, in my opinion, EXTREMELY unconstitutional to force a self-insured religious group to provide services that are against their beliefs. That is considerably closer to 'establishing a religion' than any posting of the Ten Commandments on a courtroom wall.

I was more interested in the dynamics of these institutions. I know that many private institutions recieve grants, gifts, and other various tunnels of state/federal spending that aren't broadcasted regularly. I can only assume that a institution as big as the Catholic church and it's connections do as well.

I'm not trying to be cute or anything, I don't know if they do. If there was anything I didn't know less about it would be the non-apparent connections between private entities and the government!

One last thing, this is an old article so it's likely out of date, but was Seblious's "fix" a possible solution? I haven't followed this issue but I felt I should look things up after I read this thread.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took another step on Friday to enforce a federal mandate for health insurance coverage of contraceptives, announcing how the new requirement would apply to the many Roman Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies that insure themselves.

In such cases, the administration said, female employees and students will still have access to free coverage of contraceptives.

The coverage will be provided by the companies that review and pay claims — “third-party administrators� — or by “some other independent entity,� it said.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the government would guarantee women access to contraceptives “while accommodating religious liberty interests.� ...

... Who will provide the money to pay the claims for contraceptive drugs and devices? Who will pay the fees normally paid by the employer?

Secretary Sebelius said the money could come from pharmaceutical companies, which sometimes provide discounts to favored customers by paying rebates on drugs. These drug rebates could be used to help pay for contraceptive coverage if a religious organization objects to providing such coverage to employees, she said in a notice to be published next week in the Federal Register.

Alternatively, Ms. Sebelius said, the federal Office of Personnel Management could encourage or require one or more private insurers to provide contraceptive coverage for people in a religious organization’s health plan. Under the 2010 health care law, the personnel office will sign contracts with at least two insurers to offer comprehensive coverage to individuals, families and small businesses in every state.

[nursebenjamin]

We shouldn’t even be discussing what is required of employers; we should instead be discussing what is required of health insurance companies.

Why? … [Employers] should be able to determine what is and isn't included in the plans they offer.

P.S. The rule isn’t even new; it has basically been in effect for over a decade. Republicans are up in arms now because the new rule concerning preventive health services for women was issued under Obama’s watch. And Republicans are nothing but a Do-Nothing Party that opposes everything associated with Obama.

That's a good thing. Of course, it seems a little, er....dumb? to blame the Republicans for the problems when the Democrats have had FULL control of the congress for all but one of the last SIX years, and full control of the government for three of 'em...the first two years of Obama's term.

There is quite literally NOTHING the Republicans COULD do to stem the tide. How ironic that you are now BLAMING them for the problems.

I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. The “problem� here is that there was no great conservative outcry in 2000-20001 when the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you remember the huge controversy back in October 2007, when the Supreme Court declined to review a New York Law Requiring Insurers to Cover Contraceptives?[9]

If this rule has been on the books in one way or another for years, then why such a controversy at this time? I think that the answer to that question is that the Republican Party has hypocritically found another way to attack the President and the Affordable Care Act. And more importantly, in their attempt to undermine the president by any means possible, conservatives are throwing women under the bus in the process.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,[7] which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.�[8]

Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? In other words, it's not about the Catholics contracting health services with, oh...Kaiser Permanente or something, where Kaiser offers a range of plans and the Catholics pick one that best fits their needs.

This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion. Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.

<<<“Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? … This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion.�>>>
No, I didn’t know that. I don’t know about all the legal wrangling surrounding this, but I’m pretty sure that insurance companies have their own set of regulations, including a fiduciary duty for self-insured companies. The HHS isn’t going to rule on self-insured companies until next year. Personally, I'd like to see the government set up a Medicare-type program that ensures everyone has access to preventative and wellness medicine.

There’s more than one “liberty� at stake here, and this is something that many conservatives ignore. What about the right of people to not have their employer stand between them and their doctor? What about the right of people to have preventative medical services based off of evidenced based research?

I’ve asked the following questions again and again, but no one of the other side of the debate is brave enough to give me a straight answer: Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exclude psychiatric care from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan? Should a Christian fundie, citing his preference for faith heeling, be allowed to exclude diabetic management from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan? If the answer to these question is "no", then why should Catholic organizations have the right to deny women evidenced-based preventative medicine?

It maybe that the political climate at this time is that the private opinions of a handful of old men[10] is given more weight than evidenced-based research. I do believe that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.�[Martin Luther King Jr.] It may not happen in our lifetime, but there will be a time when we don’t allow Religious leaders to impose their will upon the general populace, public officials, or public policy.

<<<“Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.�>>>
I’m pretty sure that Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t be allowed to run a Level II Trauma center without a blood bank. That’s because federal regulations require that Level I-II Trauma centers have a blood bank.

The following year, a group of employees sued their employer for failure to comply with the EEOC rule. The Court ruled that the employer’s prescription drug plan discriminates against its female employees by providing less complete coverage than that offered to male employees. The court ORDERED the employer to cover all prescription contraception and contraception-related services.[9] The employer lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case.

Well, the Catholics don't offer birth control pills to guys, either. That should settle that one.

There are no FDA-approved male birth control pills. The court ruling was pretty clear: If one offers a range of prescription medication to males, and to females they offer a range of prescription medication minus birth control pills, then this discriminates on the basis of sex. I don’t know why this is a difficult concept.

The only difference between the EEOC ruling of 2000 and Department of Health and Human Services’ 2012 rule is that (A) the co-pay most go away, (B) the EEOC rule excluded employers who employed less than 15 people, and (C) the HHS rule exempts certain religious organizations that employ only religious workers.

So, tell me please, why were conservatives not up in arms with Bush, who for eight years, did nothing to alter or withdraw the EEOC rule? Is there any reason other then blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy?

How about...there is a difference between what a third party insurer does,and what is required of self insured religious institutions?

So in other words, you think that if a company runs its own insurance program, then it should be able to play by a different standard of rules? A HMO plan run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield should have different rules compared to a plan run by the University of Norte Dame? Couldn’t this set up a system whereas the government is favoring certain religions?

[dianaiad]

<<<“Most Catholic-owned institutions are self-insured. You realize that, right? … This is about directly forcing the CATHOLICS to provide things that are very much against their religion.�>>>
No, I didn’t know that. I don’t know about all the legal wrangling surrounding this, but I’m pretty sure that insurance companies have their own set of regulations, including a fiduciary duty for self-insured companies.

There is a huge difference (speaking of your charge of 'no outcry,') between religious institutions that are self-insured (that is, contract health services and pay for them directly) and hiring third party insurers.

The HHS isn’t going to rule on self-insured companies until next year. Personally, I'd like to see the government set up a Medicare-type program that ensures everyone has access to preventative and wellness medicine.

So would I, if the government was capable of doing it efficiently and well, and we could afford it. Unfortunately, the government doesn't have a history of doing ANYTHING efficiently, and other nations show exactly how 'not well' government run health care works (and so does Medicare, Medicade and Medical--let's not go into the Veteran's health care system, and Puleeeze don't let's mention the post office)

We for darn sure can't afford it.

We do need to do something about the health care system....but (with a few exceptions) nothing I've seen proposed by the left so far is going to work.

There’s more than one “liberty� at stake here, and this is something that many conservatives ignore.

No, we aren't ignoring anything. we ARE denying that making other people pay for elective health services that are against their religions can be deemed 'a right.'

What about the right of people to not have their employer stand between them and their doctor?

Since when is "I'm not going to pay for this, because it's elective and against our deepest beliefs, so if you want it you'll have to find some other way to get it" is 'standing between people and their doctors?" Insurance companies do this all the time, btw, and nobody so much as twitches an eyebrow.

For instance; want a breast reduction? Fine--unless you can prove that your bust size is adversely affecting your health, it's cosmetic surgery and (gasp) your insurance company ain't payin' for it. Want breast implants? Same thing; unless it's medically necessary (such as after a mastectomy), the insurance company ain't payin.

Tummy tuck? Suppose you've lost two hundred pounds and are wearing an 'apron' that bounces around your knees. UNLESS you are getting a hernia or abscesses, it's elective cosmetic surgery and the insurance company ain't payin.

Hair plugs? Nope, not payin.

HEARING AIDS?

Sorry, not paying.

I haven't seen the government getting upset about that--and by the way, Obamacare doesn't pay for any of the above, EITHER.

Nobody, however, is claiming that by not paying, the 'employer is getting between the employee and his/her doctor." THAT would involve stuff like nailing the clinic door shut, or firing you if you dare to pay for these things yourself.

So the Catholics don't want to pay for birth control pills unless they are medically necessary (for instance, for the treatment of endometriosis). Birth control is ELECTIVE. You take it because you want to do something....that is, have sex....that you don't, in order to survive, need to do. The church isn't telling its employees that they will be fired if they get those pills elsewhere (and there are plenty of 'elsewhere's' that they can go, very cheaply and often for free). They simply say that they aren't going to pay for it.

So whose rights are being infringed on here? People who work for the Catholic church are QUITE aware of the situation; nobody is keeping their doctrine a secret, so, if you work for the Catholic church, you are going to have to pay for your own birth control, just like if you work for Wal Mart, you are going to have to buy your own tan pants and dark blue shirts. Comes with the job. Get over it.

Since when you have the right to make someone else go against their own religious beliefs to enable you to break their moral codes?

Y'know, Brigham Young University is a church owned university; Tier one, actually. You aren't going to find a coffee dispenser anywhere on campus. The cafeteria won't sell you any coffee or tea. There is no wine at the restaurant.

Now--do you think that, if you got a job teaching at BYU (and there are plenty of non-LDS professors there) you have the right to force the university to put a Starbucks on campus? Serve champaigne at catered weddings? Hold "keggers?" (well, they do...but it's root beer in the kegs...).

How about forcing BYU to put condom dispensers in the restrooms?

.....................................and how is BYU standing between you and your inner Starbucks by not having one ON CAMPUS? How are the Catholics standing between women and their doctors by not providing contraception for FREE?

You want health insurance that covers contraception? Fine. Don't work for the Catholics. Simple.

What about the right of people to have preventative medical services based off of evidenced based research?

Tea is supposed to be good for you, too; lots of anti-oxidents. BYU is still not going to sell it to you. "The other white meat" (pork) is also supposed to be better for you than beef. Kosher caterers are still not going to sell you any. Scar removal, face lifts and other cosmetic procedures are known to improve self esteem and, in many cases, health. Insurance companies still aren't paying for it. Nobody can argue against the life saving benefits of a well-timed blood transfusion...but Jehovah's Witnesses still don't have to have Red Cross blood drives in their parking lots.

Seems to me that the 'rights' problem is fairly simple; y'all want the right to make others abandon their constitutionally guaranteed ones. Sorry, I"m not going for that AT all.

I’ve asked the following questions again and again, but no one of the other side of the debate is brave enough to give me a straight answer: Should a Christian Scientist employer be allowed to exclude psychiatric care from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

IF the plan is fully funded and administered by the Christian Scientists and they own the business? Yes.

Should a Christian fundie, citing his preference for faith heeling, be allowed to exclude diabetic management from his employees’ employer-based health insurance plan?

IF the plan is fully funded and administered by the "fundie" in question (that is, the church owns it..and the business is run BY the church? Yes.

If the answer to these question is "no", then why should Catholic organizations have the right to deny women evidenced-based preventative medicine?

Why are you assuming that the answer is 'no?" BTW, I've never seen you ask that question, myself.

It maybe that the political climate at this time is that the private opinions of a handful of old men[10] is given more weight than evidenced-based research. I do believe that “the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.�[Martin Luther King Jr.] It may not happen in our lifetime, but there will be a time when we don’t allow Religious leaders to impose their will upon the general populace, public officials, or public policy.

Since when is deciding what one will do with one's own business and one's own money "imposing their will upon the general populace, public officials, or public policy?"

Tell me; my son is a hang-glider pilot; very safety conscious, and highly rated. He's good at what he does. HE also pays higher premiums for life insurance because he likes to jump off cliffs that way. Does he have the right to insist upon paying the same lower premiums his neighbor does? Is his insurance company 'standing between him" and his right to live life the way he wants?

Or does the insurance company have the right to say 'fine....but if you are going to jump off cliffs, YOU get to pay for the extra risk."

Doesn't the Catholic Church have the right to tell people who are directly employed, and insured, by the church that hey....fine, if you want to go out and have sex, fine, but YOU pay for the stuff you need to do it, because it's AGAINST OUR RELIGION?

<<<“Sorta like forcing the Jehovah's Witnesses to run a blood bank.�>>>
I’m pretty sure that Jehovah’s Witnesses wouldn’t be allowed to run a Level II Trauma center without a blood bank. That’s because federal regulations require that Level I-II Trauma centers have a blood bank.[/qyite]

...................SERIOUSLY????????

Boy, is THAT a red herring. Jehovah's Witnesses don't run Level II Trauma Centers, and CAtholics have no problem with blood banks. However, Jehovah's Witnesses are NOT forced to have the Red Cross trailer soliciting donations in their parking lots, and the Catholic Church should not be forced to directly pay for contraception measured for their employees.

The following year, a group of employees sued their employer for failure to comply with the EEOC rule. The Court ruled that the employer’s prescription drug plan discriminates against its female employees by providing less complete coverage than that offered to male employees. The court ORDERED the employer to cover all prescription contraception and contraception-related services.[9] The employer lost on appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear arguments in the case.

Well, the Catholics don't offer birth control pills to guys, either. That should settle that one.

There are no FDA-approved male birth control pills.

Irrelevant. Condoms exist.

The court ruling was pretty clear: If one offers a range of prescription medication to males, and to females they offer a range of prescription medication minus birth control pills, then this discriminates on the basis of sex. I don’t know why this is a difficult concept.

Because it's ....

Like suing someone because they don't offer prostate cancer screening to women, or Pap smears to men.

You cannot, logically, be blamed for not offering something that does not exist. If 'they' paid for condoms but not the birth control pills, THEN you might have a case. However, if they simply do not offer birth control--of whatever sort is available to either sex, that's not 'discrimination according to sex" any more than offering lactation nurses only to new MOTHERS is sexual discrimination.

You don't know why that's such a difficult concept? Tell you what; you go sue someone for not selling tampons specifically made for men and see how simple a concept yours is.

The only difference between the EEOC ruling of 2000 and Department of Health and Human Services’ 2012 rule is that (A) the co-pay most go away, (B) the EEOC rule excluded employers who employed less than 15 people, and (C) the HHS rule exempts certain religious organizations that employ only religious workers.

So, tell me please, why were conservatives not up in arms with Bush, who for eight years, did nothing to alter or withdraw the EEOC rule? Is there any reason other then blatant and unapologetic hypocrisy?

Because the situation applied to third party insurers. Could also be because we had OTHER things to deal with at the time, and because, oh, I dunno---it wasn't so danged BLATANT?

How about...there is a difference between what a third party insurer does,and what is required of self insured religious institutions?

So in other words, you think that if a company runs its own insurance program, then it should be able to play by a different standard of rules?

If those different standards are based upon religious objections, you betcha.

A HMO plan run by Blue Cross/Blue Shield should have different rules compared to a plan run by the University of Norte Dame? Couldn’t this set up a system whereas the government is favoring certain religions?

How?

In fact, what the government is doing NOW is 'establishing a religion,'
in that it is deciding what religious ideas are acceptable and which are not, OFFICIALLY.

This is a fairly narrow thing that's happening....

IF it's a church.
IF the church is self insured (and doesn't provide insurance to anybody else)
IF the business is owned, operated, and publicly identified with that church, and
IF the church doesn't take public funds and use them to hire and manage employees, THEN

The government has NO right to tell them what they must, and must not, pay for in terms of insurance coverage.

I'd personally expand that to churches that hire third party insurance companies that design insurance plans specifically for the church---though in that case I would ask the insurance company to make the 'verbotten' items available to those employees who want them at a reduced price elsewhere, as long as church funds aren't used to pay for 'em.

To do otherwise is to establish religious doctrine and make churches that disagree toe the government line. Makes reciting the Lord's Prayer in school look piddledink in comparison.

[nursebenjamin]

@ dianaiad, Forgive me, but I don’t have time to respond to everything in your last post; however, four things:

I. If a public policy goal is to ensure that Americans have access to quality, affordable health care,[5] (as determined by both branches of Congress and signed into law by the president) and there is abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs[1], how would you write policy rules for the purpose of increasing access to affordable birth control of one’s choice? Keep in mind that contraception of choice is cost prohibitive to many women. Also keep in mind that a public option or single payer system is not politically feasible at this time.


II. You said, “IF the church doesn't take public funds and use them to hire and manage employees, THEN the government has NO right to tell them what they must.�

But you do realize that church-affiliated universities and hospitals (and that’s basically what we are talking about here) do take money from the government: universities in the form of tax exemptions, research grants, Pell grants, and subsidized student loans; and hospitals in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, CHP programs, etc… ?

Does this mean that the government has a right to tell religiously-affiliated businesses what to do?


III. What exactly is this huge difference between religious-affiliated institutions that are self-insured and those that contract a third party insurer?


IV. While no one is forcing Brigham Young University to have a Starbucks inside the campus food court, if BYU did decide to have one, then that Starbucks would be beholden to lots of local, state, and federal regulations, (such as keeping food at certain temperatures, fire codes, and minimum wage laws). And BYU would have to follow these regulations regardless of any religious objections, right?

[dianaiad]

@ dianaiad, Forgive me, but I don’t have time to respond to everything in your last post; however, four things:

I. If a public policy goal is to ensure that Americans have access to quality, affordable health care,[5] (as determined by both branches of Congress and signed into law by the president) and there is abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, is documented to significantly reduce health costs[1], how would you write policy rules for the purpose of increasing access to affordable birth control of one’s choice? Keep in mind that contraception of choice is cost prohibitive to many women. Also keep in mind that a public option or single payer system is not politically feasible at this time.


II. You said, “IF the church doesn't take public funds and use them to hire and manage employees, THEN the government has NO right to tell them what they must.�

But you do realize that church-affiliated universities and hospitals (and that’s basically what we are talking about here) do take money from the government: universities in the form of tax exemptions, research grants, Pell grants, and subsidized student loans; and hospitals in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, CHP programs, etc… ?

Hence the qualifier "hire and manage employees."

There was a recent kerfuffle about Catholic Charities in Illinois not allowing gay couples to adopt, and the state pretty much disbanding them as a result. Oddly enough, I agree with the state on that, since Catholic Charities (the adoption part) got funding FOR ADOPTION SERVICES from the state. In other words, they got money to run their services from people who were then being discriminated against....in other words, people were paying for services they were being refused.

That is not the case with contraception and Catholic hospitals, which were not refusing services to some that they were actually offering to others; they are simply refusing to offer the services, period--because those specific services are against their faith.

Think about it; they aren't being discriminatory here; it's not that they are giving some women contraceptives and refusing them to others. They don't want to be forced to pay for contraceptives at all.

It's their right. Those who come to work for them do so in full knowledge of their doctrines and position in this matter; they have a choice.

Does this mean that the government has a right to tell religiously-affiliated businesses what to do?

I have referred to this as a 'deal with the devil.' If you take government money that is used for personnel and management (payroll and hiring) then the one doing the paying has some say in what the money goes for.

I do not think that a grant that is for research, or to pay for PATIENT care should be considered enough 'hook' to dictate insurance coverage for employees, however.

III. What exactly is this huge difference between religious-affiliated institutions that are self-insured and those that contract a third party insurer?

Third party insurers are in it for the money. They offer INSURANCE services to the public, and can thus be 'gotten at' that way. If the church doesn't want to pay for contraception, then the insurance company should offer an added 'sign up for it yourself' benefit to the employees so that they can get what they want without making the church pay for it.

However, when a church 'self insured' (that is, the church actually pays for the medical care and buys the pharmaceuticals directly) then it is very wrong...unconstitutional, in my opinion...to force them to directly purchase, for distribution, items that are against their faith.

And birth control just isn't that expensive. Certainly the most poorly paid employee at a Catholic hospital can come up with $30 per month--or go to Planned Parenthood and get it for less than that.

IV. While no one is forcing Brigham Young University to have a Starbucks inside the campus food court, if BYU did decide to have one, then that Starbucks would be beholden to lots of local, state, and federal regulations, (such as keeping food at certain temperatures, fire codes, and minimum wage laws). And BYU would have to follow these regulations regardless of any religious objections, right?

Wow, another red herring. The point is the coffee. Starbucks exists to serve COFFEE. Everything else it serves is accessorizing. What you are trying to do here is to turn things upside down; Yeah, Starbucks does serve hot chocolate and pastries...but it's not a pastry shop that happens to serve coffee.

...............and hospitals and medical clinics are not birth control dispensaries that happen to have trauma centers on the side.

"The Pill" is not (unless medically necessary) anything BUT elective. A woman can go her entire life and never take it. Y'know....like me....and I have no religious or other objections to it. When 'the Pill' only prevents pregnancy but NOT STD's, one could even make a case that 'the Pill" is actually more dangerous than the very cheapest form of pregnancy preventative; abstinence.

Whether you like that or not, it is TRUE that abstinence is far more effective in preventing pregnancy and STD's than any other form of birth control. Why that should make anybody gasp in horror is beyond me, when people don't have any problems at all looking at the obesity problem in the USA and dismiss it with 'just stop eating so much."

and nobody is getting upset at that.

[nursebenjamin]

Hence the qualifier "hire and manage employees."

So, the money that hospitals spend on their labor force is different from the money that it receives?

However, when a church 'self insured' (that is, the church actually pays for the medical care and buys the pharmaceuticals directly) then it is very wrong...unconstitutional, in my opinion...to force them to directly purchase, for distribution, items that are against their faith.

The government will probably end up contracting with one or more private insurers to provide contraception coverage for people in a religious organization’s health plan. If self-insured companies are unwilling to provide “Essential Health Benefits�, then they should paid the $2000/employee penalty for not providing comprehensive health care. This money can then be used to pay for the privately-contracted contraception coverage.

And birth control just isn't that expensive. Certainly the most poorly paid employee at a Catholic hospital can come up with $30 per month--or go to Planned Parenthood and get it for less than that.

It doesn’t matter how “inexpensive� contraception is. It is simply a fact that contraception of choice is still cost prohibitive to many women. Why is this something that you guys keep ignoring?

Wow, another red herring. The point is the coffee.

No, the point is that church-affiliated businesses have to follow all kinds of regulations. I don’t really know much about Mormons, other then the fact that they wear magic underwear. But suppose that they didn’t believe in following fire codes because doing so meant that one didn’t have sufficient faith in the benevolence of God. A Mormon-owned business would not be allowed to opt out of local fire regulations.

"The Pill" is not (unless medically necessary) anything BUT elective. A woman can go her entire life and never take it. Y'know....like me....and I have no religious or other objections to it.

Almost everything in medicine is elective, as opposed to emergent and urgent. Elective medicine includes physicals and wellness checkups, cancer treatment, and diabetic management. Even though something is elective, doesn’t make it medically unnecessary.

When 'the Pill' only prevents pregnancy but NOT STD's, one could even make a case that 'the Pill" is actually more dangerous than the very cheapest form of pregnancy preventative; abstinence.

God forbid that a married women may want to have sex with her husband. Your response here illustrates what this issue really boils down to: sex. Sexual morality. The need to control female sexuality. Religions’ obsession with controlling the sexuality of women, individuals, and couples.

[WinePusher]

God forbid that a married women may want to have sex with her husband.

I don't know about you, but most married couples I know don't rely on birth control to enable their recreational sex life. They opt for more permanent solutions, like tubal ligation or vasectomies. So, the type of women we're talking about here aren't married women, but rather unmarried women. And in the case of unmarried women, abstinence is the cheapest pregnancy prevention method out there. I'm not someone who thinks abstinence is ideal or realistic, but I also don't think it's ideal to promote a culture of 'have sex whenever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you feel like it.'

Your response here illustrates what this issue really boils down to: sex. Sexual morality. The need to control female sexuality. Religions’ obsession with controlling the sexuality of women, individuals, and couples.

Uh no. We all have views on sexuality, and that includes many religious groups. For example, do you think there's anything morally wrong with prostitution?

[Slopeshoulder]

God forbid that a married women may want to have sex with her husband.

I don't know about you, but most married couples I know don't rely on birth control to enable their recreational sex life. They opt for more permanent solutions, like tubal ligation or vasectomies. So, the type of women we're talking about here aren't married women, but rather unmarried women.

That is utter nonsense. People who have permanent solutions tend to be a little older, after they've had kids and are confident they don't want more, even in a remarriage scenario. They use the pill usually, for quite some time. How else would they even have kids. FWIW, most people I know who have these permanent procedures are well over 40. And many don't at all, as they wonder about the future, men especially.
Although with marriage later, there is some truth in the idea that many people using birth control are unmarried.