religious employers must cover birth control

[TigerLily]

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...page=2#article

[v-girl]

They are going to be forcing organizations that do not believe in the use of birth control to pay for it. Not cool in my book. Forcing Catholic dioceses and churches to pay for birth control is not right. When you work for a Catholic organization, you know their stance on such issues. To make them pay for something to goes against their beliefs is appalling.

I'm not going to come back over and over for a debate because I'm sure I could type until my fingers fall off and non-Catholics will still not see or care about the Catholic viewpoint so I will not waste my time. But at least I'm speaking my mind on my stance on this issue.

[SoonerTexan]

Ditto vgirl. And the Catholic church isn't going to let this go without a fight...it isn't going to be pretty but there is no way they are going to back down. If you don't believe me, consider that Plan B and Ella are included as contraceptives under this mandate. The Obama administration has got to be off their rocker if they think they are going to get the Catholic Church to pay for abortions.

Interestingly the Church actively supported the health care bill but had concerns it would lead to something like this.

And honestly, I find it to be extremely odd that contraception is higher on the list of drugs that should be free than heart medications and other drugs that people need to survive on a daily basis. I understand that the pill treats other illnesses and I have no problem with that, but they obviously are not targeting those issues here.

[Pollyanna]

Yep, it's wrong. If you want free BC don't work for a Catholic organization and expect them to change their doctrine so you can get your BC. It's wrong.

Religious organizations have a year before this takes effect. Praying this will get overturned.

LOVED that the president of Belmont Abbey said they will shut down before they comply with this.

Totally agree that it's wrong

[scrub-jay]

Although this might be better suited for the debates forum, I'm with you TigerLily. I think it allows families more choice, choice that I feel should be decided by the family, not a large religious organization. But that's my two-cents. And I'll add that I also don't think this can be effectively "debated" because neither side shares the same perspective nor will be convinced. Faith is not something that is reasoned.

The argument "if you don't like the rules, don't work for them" doesn't sit well with me either. Is it okay for an organization to not employ someone who "chooses" to be gay? Or how about a start-up company that prohibits individuals who "choose" to have children? Where do we draw the line?

[SoonerTexan]

I think what gets lost often in this topic is that Catholic organizations do not prohibit their employees from using artificial contraception and don't plan to. They just do not want to pay for it. Completely different issue.

I agree that this really cannot effectively be debated either. This topic combines religion, politics, abortion, contraception, women's rights, and sex. Yikes.

ETA: But it wont stop me from explaining my point of view and addressing others questions/arguments. I view this as a question of religious freedom...something I care very deeply about. I also think the Catholic Church's position on contraception is a very misunderstood topic, even by most Catholics, and something I very much believe in defending.

Honestly, though, I'd be wary of you do work for a Catholic organization. You're probably going to be caught in the middle as some serious stuff goes down. Not a situation I envy.

I'm also annoyed at the one year "extension" that was given for religious organizations to comply. I find it highly insulting that anyone thinks my Church will find a way to be okay with something that violates our core beliefs "given a little time." It also pushes what is sure to be a firestorm of controversy regarding religious rights/separation of church and state until after the election year. How convenient.

[scrub-jay]

I guess I assumed the "extension" was something that was negotiated for by the religious organizations to give them more time to appeal? (total assumption) Those extensions can be seen in many different lights. Time to get comfortable with an idea, time to budget for the additional cost, or time to appeal... either way, it is time.

[scrub-jay]

I think what gets lost often in this topic is that Catholic organizations do not prohibit their employees from using artificial contraception and don't plan to. They just do not want to pay for it. Completely different issue.

I see refusal to pay as a form of restriction, in order to impose the organization's values onto employees who may or may not share those values. Employees are legally protected from employer retribution for personal medical decisions, but refusal to pay is a form of influencing the medical decision.

[SoonerTexan]

I guess I assumed the "extension" was something that was negotiated for by the religious organizations to give them more time to appeal? (total assumption) Those extensions can be seen in many different lights. Time to get comfortable with an idea, time to budget for the additional cost, or time to appeal... either way, it is time.

No, religious organizations asked for a wider exemption that would cover hospitals, colleges, and charities. Extra time gives them nothing and really works against them. What it DOES do is push the issue out of the limelight during a year it would get quite a bit of attention and bring up uncomfortable (but relevant) discussion regarding religious freedom. Interestingly, this decision was announced on a Friday afternoon...the traditional time to announce something you want buried. This issue has been around for over a year already...they don't need anymore time to "make it work" because they cannot and will not.

I see refusal to pay as a form of restriction, in order to impose the organization's values onto employees who may or may not share those values. Employees are legally protected from employer retribution for personal medical decisions, but refusal to pay is a form of influencing the medical decision.

This doesn't work because there are loads of medications and procedures employers/insurance plans do not cover or cover marginally. Why should contraception get special treatment, especially under these circumstances? This isn't something our legislative bodies agreed to when they passed the health care act either (not that anyone truly understood the full ramifications of it anyway!!). This is something the Obama administration chose to interpret in a specific way, knowing full well what the consequences would be.

Bottom line, if this isn't repealed many Catholic organizations will be forced to drop their health care coverage altogether (and pay a fine under the new health care law). Seems like a high price to pay for free birth control. I find it extremely ironic that implementing the health care bill this way could actively worsen the situation it was trying to remedy.

[scrub-jay]

Oral contraceptives are used to treat many conditions beyond the prevention of pregnancy. Including, but not limited to: infertility, PCOS, or dysmenorrhea. Is it appropriate for any employer (note employer, not insurance plan) to refuse to pay for treatment?

[scrub-jay]

Furthermore, many employers will drop healthcare coverage anyway because it will become far more economically feasible to pay the fine than to cover all employees. It is a circumstance that the ACA expects upon implementation and has planned for w/the development of the exchanges.

[SoonerTexan]

Oral contraceptives are used to treat many conditions beyond the prevention of pregnancy. Including, but not limited to: infertility, PCOS, or dysmenorrhea.

That's completely true (and Catholics are not prohibited from taking birth control for these diseases). I'm curious to know if there is any exemption for this now and if there isn't, I hope there would be.

BUT...that isn't the point. They are being forced to cover contraception SPECIFICALLY for reasons not conscionable to their faith (preventing pregnancy and inducing early abortions), not treating an existing, diagnosable condition the Catholic Church has no problem with.

Furthermore, many employers will drop healthcare coverage anyway because it will become far more economically feasible to pay the fine than to cover all employees. It is a circumstance that the ACA expects upon implementation and has planned for w/the development of the exchanges.

But they don't WANT to! Catholic hospitals were some of the biggest proponents of the health care bill. It seems awful that they would be forced to out of moral vs. monetary reasons.

[TigerLily]

ok ok, I don't feel that strongly about the issue. I can't believe I posted this and didn't even realize it would become a debate. I guess I lost my mind for a minute. I didn't mind at all that our insurance wouldn't cover it. I understood. So, I'm (selfishly) happy that if I decided to take BC, I wouldn't have to pay $36 a month for it.
I do appreciate though, that it doesn't require churches to cover it for their employees.
but sheesh, sorry about the debate. totally wasn't thinking

[PrincessFiona]

LOL. I believe we have the ability to debate pretty much anything around here ... don't feel bad.