Birth Control Coverage Rules Announced by Obama Administration

[_Abyssinia]

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Friday set final rules for contraception coverage in workers’ health insurance plans, putting in place a plan that is unlikely to satisfy some religious employers who object to birth control.

Federal officials released regulations requiring most health plans to include birth control with no out-of-pocket costs. The plan includes alternative arrangements for employers such as Catholic universities that have moral objections to most forms of contraception, and other Christian institutions that object specifically to the so-called morning-after pill.

Under the plan, employers with such objections must tell their insurance company or the federal government. The insurance company then takes over responsibility for providing the coverage to female employees that want it.

wsj.com/articles/birth-control-coverage-rules-announced-by-obama-administration-1436544940

 

[_Abyssinia]

Excerpt from article put out by The Becket Fund:

“The government keeps digging the hole deeper,” said Adèle Auxier Keim, Legal Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact rules they finalized today. But the government still won’t give up on its quest to force nuns and other religious employers to distribute contraceptives. Especially after the Supreme Court’s recent King v. Burwell decision allowed the government to expand its healthcare exchanges, there is no reason at all the government needs religious employers to help it distribute these products.”

The government proposed similar rules in August 2014, but many observers believed it might change position after repeated losses on the mandate issue at the Supreme Court. However, the government forged ahead and finalized rules requiring non-profit employers to help it distribute contraceptive drugs and devices.

“The government has already told thousands of businesses that they don’t need to comply with the HHS Mandate at all,” said Keim. “So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?

becketfund.org/new-hhs-mandate-rules-defiance-supreme-court/

 

[DeniseNY]

I can’t read the WSJ article; it’s behind a pay wall.

 

[MarcoPolo]

A key thing to keep in mind for those wishing to discuss this topic. The Church does not have an objection to “contraceptive” drugs when they are used for actual medical purposes. The Church objects to their use as contraceptives. Sometimes, even non-sexually active women are recommended or prescribed drugs that also happen to be contraceptives, such as for cycle regulation or pains. It should also be noted many of them are carcinogens and can lead to severe problems.

And as a side comment, is there any other product the government insists be covered that is designed, as its end, to cause the body to malfunction? It’s probably better described as anti-medicine.

 

[J_Peterson]

And as a side comment, is there any other product the government insists be covered that is designed, as its end, to cause the body to malfunction? It’s probably better described as anti-medicine.

Immunosuppressive drugs perhaps? They prevent the immune system from working like it normally would. What about pain relievers? They also stop a normal bodily reaction.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Immunosuppressive drugs perhaps? They prevent the immune system from working like it normally would.

I don’t think this is ever prescribed as an end, meaning the immune system might temporarily be suspended to correct something else.

What about pain relievers? They also stop a normal bodily reaction.

Pain is neither proper to the body as an end.

 

[Monkey1976]

A key thing to keep in mind for those wishing to discuss this topic. The Church does not have an objection to “contraceptive” drugs when they are used for actual medical purposes. The Church objects to their use as contraceptives. Sometimes, even non-sexually active women are recommended or prescribed drugs that also happen to be contraceptives, such as for cycle regulation or pains. It should also be noted many of them are carcinogens and can lead to severe problems.

The interesting part about this mandate is that these drugs are only provided without charge when they are prescribed as contraceptives. If they are prescribed for any other reason, they are no different than any other drug.

And as a side comment, is there any other product the government insists be covered that is designed, as its end, to cause the body to malfunction? It’s probably better described as anti-medicine.

An interesting question. Since these drugs are only covered when intended for such use - which is purely recreational - why is there not equal coverage for cigarettes, alcohol, etc?

 

[unstoppable_II]

So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?

Because liberals never but never give up. Just look at how they keep insisting on global warming being a problem even after their own scientists admitted cooking the data.

 

[Memaw]

Because liberals never but never give up. Just look at how they keep insisting on global warming being a problem even after their own scientists admitted cooking the data.

I don’t understand how this president has been able to get by with all the harm he has done to our Country in the past 7 years . Unbelievable and devastating to the American people and especially our young ones who will have to try to pick up the pieces for many years to come. God have Mercy on us all. God Bless, Memaw.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The interesting part about this mandate is that these drugs are only provided without charge when they are prescribed as contraceptives. If they are prescribed for any other reason, they are no different than any other drug.

Do you know where in this mandate I can read that language?

An interesting question. Since these drugs are only covered when intended for such use - which is purely recreational - why is there not equal coverage for cigarettes, alcohol, etc?

Indeed. I once asked about toothpaste. That is hygienic. And people don’t even “choose” to eat. They have to. But something that makes people think they can have more child-consequence-free sex is an easier sell…

 

[unstoppable_II]

I don’t understand how this president has been able to get by with all the harm he has done to our Country in the past 7 years . Unbelievable and devastating to the American people and especially our young ones who will have to try to pick up the pieces for many years to come. God have Mercy on us all. God Bless, Memaw.

I have come to the conclusion that politics is one giant spectator sport. There are teams, players, cheerleaders, score-keepers, bands, TV coverage, gossip, big bucks, cheating, and who knows what else. To top it off, the outcome of a campaign, like that of a game in sports, has no effect on the average viewer.

Winning is everything.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I have come to the conclusion that politics is one giant spectator sport. There are teams, players, cheerleaders, score-keepers, bands, TV coverage, gossip, big bucks, cheating, and who knows what else. To top it off, the outcome of a campaign, like that of a game in sports, has no effect on the average viewer.

Winning is everything.

Add to that,the illusion that the citizenry,by way of their vote ,actually have some skin in the game…::

 

[maryjk]

Immunosuppressive drugs perhaps? They prevent the immune system from working like it normally would. What about pain relievers? They also stop a normal bodily reaction.

The government doesn’t insist that these drugs are covered.

Some are simply denied. Most are very expensive for the insured.

It is very expensive, even with really good insurance, to have an auto-immune disease.

 

[Mulligan2]

I don’t understand how this president has been able to get by with all the harm he has done to our Country in the past 7 years . Unbelievable and devastating to the American people and especially our young ones who will have to try to pick up the pieces for many years to come. God have Mercy on us all. God Bless, Memaw.

I have no idea what you are referring to. The US economy was strong at the end of Bill Clinton’s 8 years in office. At the end of George W Bush’s tenure the economy was in free fall. While President Obama has been in office, the economy has rebounded nicely. I don’t think we’ll see any GOP candidates in 2016 campaigning on the promise of “bringing back the George W Bush years.”

 

[unstoppable_II]

… The US economy was strong at the end of Bill Clinton’s 8 years in office. … While President Obama has been in office, the economy has rebounded nicely. …

If a president had that much control over the economy, why did it take them 7 or 8 years to fix it? Why didn’t they perform their magic the first month in office?

---

The indispensable condition for our personal survival, spiritual or otherwise, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we KEEP saying NO.

 

[Mulligan2]

If a president had that much control over the economy, why did it take them 7 or 8 years to fix it? Why didn’t they perform their magic the first month in office?

Here’s the thing: presidents do not have that much control to positively affect the economy. The best they can do is to refrain from negatively affecting the economy. And when you compare the economic indicators on Bush’s first day in office versus his last, it’s readily apparent that his tenure was perhaps the worst in our nation’s history. President Obama has been a breath of fresh air by comparison.

 

[St_Francis]

Here’s the thing: presidents do not have that much control to positively affect the economy. The best they can do is to refrain from negatively affecting the economy. And when you compare the economic indicators on Bush’s first day in office versus his last, it’s readily apparent that his tenure was perhaps the worst in our nation’s history. President Obama has been a breath of fresh air by comparison.

None of the three had much to do with what happened economically during their administrations: Clinton benefited from the dot.com boom; Bush suffered from the collapse of the housing derivatives market; Obama has benefitted from the fact that when you’re at the bottom, there’s only one way to go.

 

[Mulligan2]

None of the three had much to do with what happened economically during their administrations: Clinton benefited from the dot.com boom; Bush suffered from the collapse of the housing derivatives market; Obama has benefitted from the fact that when you’re at the bottom, there’s only one way to go.

So 8 years of George W Bush’s ineptitude can be attributed to poor timing? Um, okay.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Here’s the thing: presidents do not have that much control to positively affect the economy. …

Then why did Bush get the blame and obama get the credit?

 

[JimG]

Quote:

"The government has already told thousands of businesses that they don’t need to comply with the HHS Mandate at all,” said Keim. “So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself? "

Despite numerous legal setbacks, this administration seems more determined than ever to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to acquiesce in providing contraception. It’s just amazing.

There are three things that are sacrosanct to this administration: abortion, birth control, and same sex marriage.

I hope the Catholics who voted them in are happy.