religious employers must cover birth control

[reciprocity]

I'm not sure there will be an administrative fix to this, I tend to agree with GMW that this will end up before the courts, again testing the tension between (arguably) equal protection and free exercise

[reciprocity]

then again, maybe we can solve this with a single-payer option! I'm sure that's something we can all agree on, right? right?

[diggitydot]

I would love to see a single-payer option.

As for residents and fellows, their ability to control where they end up is in their rank list. We didn't rank a single religiously affiliated program for either residency or fellowship.

[SuzySunshine]

As for residents and fellows, their ability to control where they end up is in their rank list. We didn't rank a single religiously affiliated program for either residency or fellowship.

This is really interesting (and I mean this whole conversation) we didn't even take something like that into consideration. And at Mayo they have a catholic hospital and a non-religious hospital in the same town, same employees, same company, less then a mile apart and our insurance did cover my BC, my IUD (though all OB/Gyn is done at the non-catholic hospital), etc. you don't really think about how that affects things until you are in a conversation like that.

Interestingly enough the hospital DH is going to work for is catholic and we didn't even think of these things...

[Pollyanna]

If interested, here is an opinion piece published today in the WSJ by the Archbishop of New York:

ObamaCare and Religious Freedom
How about some respect for Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease?
By TIMOTHY M. DOLAN

Religious freedom is the lifeblood of the American people, the cornerstone of American government. When the Founding Fathers determined that the innate rights of men and women should be enshrined in our Constitution, they so esteemed religious liberty that they made it the first freedom in the Bill of Rights.

In particular, the Founding Fathers fiercely defended the right of conscience. George Washington himself declared: "The conscientious scruples of all men should be treated with great delicacy and tenderness; and it is my wish and desire, that the laws may always be extensively accommodated to them." James Madison, a key defender of religious freedom and author of the First Amendment, said: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."

Scarcely two weeks ago, in its Hosanna-Tabor decision upholding the right of churches to make ministerial hiring decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously and enthusiastically reaffirmed these longstanding and foundational principles of religious freedom. The court made clear that they include the right of religious institutions to control their internal affairs.

Yet the Obama administration has veered in the opposite direction. It has refused to exempt religious institutions that serve the common good—including Catholic schools, charities and hospitals—from its sweeping new health-care mandate that requires employers to purchase contraception, including abortion-producing drugs, and sterilization coverage for their employees.

Last August, when the administration first proposed this nationwide mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage, it also proposed a "religious employer" exemption. But this was so narrow that it would apply only to religious organizations engaged primarily in serving people of the same religion. As Catholic Charities USA's president, the Rev. Larry Snyder, notes, even Jesus and His disciples would not qualify for the exemption in that case, because they were committed to serve those of other faiths.

Since then, hundreds of religious institutions, and hundreds of thousands of individual citizens, have raised their voices in principled opposition to this requirement that religious institutions and individuals violate their own basic moral teaching in their health plans. Certainly many of these good people and groups were Catholic, but many were Americans of other faiths, or no faith at all, who recognize that their beliefs could be next on the block. They also recognize that the cleverest way for the government to erode the broader principle of religious freedom is to target unpopular beliefs first.

Now we have learned that those loud and strong appeals were ignored. On Friday, the administration reaffirmed the mandate, and offered only a one-year delay in enforcement in some cases—as if we might suddenly be more willing to violate our consciences 12 months from now. As a result, all but a few employers will be forced to purchase coverage for contraception, abortion drugs and sterilization services even when they seriously object to them. All who share the cost of health plans that include such services will be forced to pay for them as well. Surely it violates freedom of religion to force religious ministries and citizens to buy health coverage to which they object as a matter of conscience and religious principle.

The rule forces insurance companies to provide these services without a co-pay, suggesting they are "free"—but it is naïve to believe that. There is no free lunch, and you can be sure there's no free abortion, sterilization or contraception. There will be a source of funding: you.

Coercing religious ministries and citizens to pay directly for actions that violate their teaching is an unprecedented incursion into freedom of conscience. Organizations fear that this unjust rule will force them to take one horn or the other of an unacceptable dilemma: Stop serving people of all faiths in their ministries—so that they will fall under the narrow exemption—or stop providing health-care coverage to their own employees.

The Catholic Church defends religious liberty, including freedom of conscience, for everyone. The Amish do not carry health insurance. The government respects their principles. Christian Scientists want to heal by prayer alone, and the new health-care reform law respects that. Quakers and others object to killing even in wartime, and the government respects that principle for conscientious objectors. By its decision, the Obama administration has failed to show the same respect for the consciences of Catholics and others who object to treating pregnancy as a disease.

This latest erosion of our first freedom should make all Americans pause. When the government tampers with a freedom so fundamental to the life of our nation, one shudders to think what lies ahead.

Timothy Dolan is archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

[Vanquisher]

As for residents and fellows, their ability to control where they end up is in their rank list. We didn't rank a single religiously affiliated program for either residency or fellowship.

That's a really, really thin amount of control, especially in certain specialties where most applicants would be happy to match anywhere, period.

I would argue this hypothetical scenario...:

You are a resident applicant in a highly competitive specialty. Although you are a good applicant, you manage 6 interviews. 1 of the hospitals you are offered an interview at is run by the Church of Xena the Unicorn. You don't agree with the churches particular beliefs, but, neither do many of the physicians who actually work there. The program is actually perceived to be really nice, and it's close to your hometown where you are dying to go back to. However, you are still wary of the Xena Unicorn faith, and so you choose to rank the program 6/6, thinking that any match has to be better than no match inspite of your trepidation, and you are pretty confident it'll all be okay even if you DO happen to match that far down your list.

Match Day comes. Yup. Xena the Unicorn hospital. All is going well at your job, and then a year later, you find out you are pregnant. Xena the Unicorn hospital won't cover your FMLA, your maternity leave, or your medical bills because they believe that it is immoral to get pregnant and have a baby unless you are under 24 years of age. Furthermore, halfway into your pregnancy, you discover a life threatening heart condition for which you will require surgery and a lengthy inpatient hospital stay. Xena Unicorn faith feels that heart afflictions are caused by having an impure relationship with God, and therefore they refuse to cover any services related to this condition (100K+ worth of care). Even though the government mandates that they cover these things, Xena Unicorn hospital has an exemption because they are a faith-based organization. It is a real and true depiction of their faith.

So, then, is that okay? Or is it only okay because the rationale seems plausible? I would argue that a woman who cannot get coverage for fertility treatments or BC pills, or IUDs because the catholic church views these things as immoral is having their individual human rights violated more than an organization is by having to pay for them. Practicing members of Catholocism can choose their own faith practices and not use birth control pills, but a Methodist or Baptist or Agnostic, or whatever cannot get coverage because a great big orgnaization wants to cry foul?

Sorry. I see too many denials for too many things EVERY day. You know, I don't think this is about freedom of religion AT ALL. I think this is about money. It's all about what a big organization doesn't have to pay for.

[diggitydot]

I absolutely agree with you, H.

Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion -- not that someone else can force their personally held beliefs onto others. You can only control your own behavior, not the actions and choices of others.

[MissCrabette]

Having read what Heidi just posted, I agree with that 100%. I'm such a flip-flopper. Maybe my knee-jerk reaction had more to do with the government having to step in to ensure that these things are covered. Ideally, they would be covered without government intervention, but we obviously don't live in an ideal world.

[v-girl]

And I will repeat -- the Catholic Church will shut down those hospitals or close them to non-Catholics before they pay for birth control. I guess the other option would be to not offer health insurance at all. Do you think a Christian Scientist company should have to pay for health insurance for their employees?

[reciprocity]

That's a really, really thin amount of control, especially in certain specialties where most applicants would be happy to match anywhere, period.

I would argue this hypothetical scenario...:

Sorry. I see too many denials for too many things EVERY day. You know, I don't think this is about freedom of religion AT ALL. I think this is about money. It's all about what a big organization doesn't have to pay for.

I don't even know that you necessarily have to come up with a hypothetical set of religious beliefs that would make it exceedingly difficult for a female doctor to be successful at her job, simply being denied access to reliable control over reproduction seems like enough of a roadblock to my mind.

[diggitydot]

And I will repeat -- the Catholic Church will shut down those hospitals or close them to non-Catholics before they pay for birth control.

Religiously affiliated businesses may threaten to close their facilities, I doubt they'll follow through, though. They make entirely too much money from those ventures and without that funding they'll be incapable of supporting other programs.

Do you think a Christian Scientist company should have to pay for health insurance for their employees?

If that company is large enough to be required to abide by federal law, yes.

[scrub-jay]

And I will repeat -- the Catholic Church will shut down those hospitals or close them to non-Catholics before they pay for birth control. I guess the other option would be to not offer health insurance at all. Do you think a Christian Scientist company should have to pay for health insurance for their employees?

Religion aside, this is a provision in the Affordable Care Act. Employers with more than 50 employees must either offer health insurance for employees or pay a fine of $2000 per FT employee beyond the first 30 employees. http://www.healthcare.gov/using-insu...ess/index.html

ETA: Cross posted with DD

[Pollyanna]

You know, I don't think this is about freedom of religion AT ALL. I think this is about money. It's all about what a big organization doesn't have to pay for.

Heidi, trust me, this is NOT about money, to assume so shows your complete lack of understanding of the Catholic Church and her deeply held beliefs.

Like V said, the Church WILL NOT change on this, the President of Belmont Abbey already said he would rather shut down the university then go against the Church's most fundamental teachings. Remember, it is NOT just the employer who is paying for BC/abortions/etc, but every single employee who pays into the system. So Catholics who also work for the institution must pay for other choices that we do not agree with.

[corn poffi]

I'm sure every single one of us has to pay for something that goes against our beliefs. Maybe we should all just stop paying taxes because we don't agree with something they fund.

[Pollyanna]

I absolutely agree with you, H.

Religious freedom also means freedom FROM religion -- not that someone else can force their personally held beliefs onto others. You can only control your own behavior, not the actions and choices of others.

No one is forcing their religion on anyone. People just have to pay for their own contraceptives. I really don't get why people feel so entitled to have their employers pay for everything.