White House: Faith groups can opt out of contraception mandate

0

The Obama administration finalized rules on Friday that allow religious-affiliated organizations opposing the use of contraception to opt out of a federal mandate requiring that they provide their employees with insurance coverage for birth control.


The mandates give women at nonprofit, religious-based organizations, like certain hospitals and universities, the ability to receive contraception through separate health policies at no charge.

The rules, which were first proposed in February and then open for comment through April, have undergone only minor changes. Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, deputy director for policy and regulations at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said in a call with reporters that the rules were "very similar" to the administration's original proposal.

One of the few noticeable changes is the process by which insurance companies reimburse nonprofit religious organizations — such as nonprofit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education — that object to contraceptive coverage. This process, officials from HHS said, has provided more distance between the groups that disapprove of contraceptive use and the insurance companies that will be supplying contraceptives to their employees at no cost.

Written By: Dan Merica and Kevin Bohn
continue to source article at cnn.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. I like Obama, but this is my problem with his administration. He gives in to the crazies.

    Mr Obama: you got reelected and you don’t have to run again…start standing up to the nut jobs of the world. Please.

    • In reply to #1 by MAJORPAIN:

      I like Obama, but this is my problem with his administration. He gives in to the crazies.

      Mr Obama: you got reelected and you don’t have to run again…start standing up to the nut jobs of the world. Please.

      He “gives in to crazies” because he has a country to run and the American people have given him a bunch of crazy people in charge of much of it, including the part of Congress that controls the budget. The crazies are fine with just bringing the government to a halt (except the war part) and letting Americans suffer for lack of things like basic healthcare. So Obama has to make all kinds of repulsive deals with them just to get modest improvements like the affordable care act. If you actually look at the details of most of his choices, time and again he had no choice due to constraints from Congress or he compromised to make a deal that was good for a lot of Americans.

    • In reply to #1 by MAJORPAIN:

      I like Obama, but this is my problem with his administration. He gives in to the crazies.

      Mr Obama: you got reelected and you don’t have to run again…start standing up to the nut jobs of the world. Please.

      I think I erred, presuming Obama was much closer to my views than he appeared. I merely had to wait for the second term for him to stand up to the nutcases.

      1. He is beginning to give up his climate change denial stance, I suspect that may be just optics.
      2. He is as crazy as Bush when it comes to torture, unconstitutional incarceration, spying, assassinations.
      3. He did not push gay marriage, just floated along on the tide.
      4. He is a Christian. He believes great rafts of that madness. We should not assume he is just spouting madness for the crowd. He believes much of it.
      5. He is a constitutional lawyer who has done as many unconstitutional things as Bush. He has to be underneath a scheming bastard to do that, quite unlike his folksy public image.
  2. “They denounced it (supply of contraception to workers) as an infringement on religious liberty.”

    Weasel phrasing, meaning: the liberty to impose your wishes on everyone else. Orwell lives.

    • In reply to #4 by prettygoodformonkeys:

      “They denounced it (supply of contraception to workers) as an infringement on religious liberty.”

      Weasel phrasing, meaning: the liberty to impose your wishes on everyone else. Orwell lives.

      Religious organisations in America (especially) don’t understand that religious freedom and secularism are the same thing. Their definition of religious freedom means freedom from other peoples rules

      • In reply to #5 by N_Ellis:

        In reply to #4 by prettygoodformonkeys:

        “They denounced it (supply of contraception to workers) as an infringement on religious liberty.”

        Weasel phrasing, meaning: the liberty to impose your wishes on everyone else. Orwell lives.

        Religious organisations in America (especially) don’t understand that religious freedom and secularism are the same thing. Their definition of religious freedom means freedom from other peoples rules

        Exactly. They still think they should have a religious right to infringe on others. Religious freedom to them is: The Free Reign Of MY Religion.

  3. Logically an insurance company should provide birth control at zero cost because people who take them don’t have babies. Babies are quite costly to the health care insurance providers, far outweighing the cost of the pills. Perhaps that observation will allow both sides in this dispute to save face.

    The Catholics don’t want to be in the embarrassing position of buying pills. They also want some way to punish non-Catholics and naughty Catholics who use them. It is more about symbolic action than effectively blocking employees from using birth control. No employer is big on its employees getting pregnant. It is disruptive to work.

    Logically insurance companies should charge a fat premium for anyone trying to have a baby, and some sort of penalty for someone who declares they are not trying, but have one by accident.

  4. “the changes would allow religious organizations morally opposed to contraception to avoid paying for it.”

    Always comes back to money with god. So they don’t have to pay? That’s great in that case they can pay tax. They get to opt out of anything that costs them money including paying tax.

Leave a Reply