Birth Control Rule Clarified

[seekerz]

It isn’t anything. The employer isn’t involved, so there is no issue. I don’t oppose things for opposing sake…what a dumb comment.

Abortions for birth defects. Nice. My brother who was born with birth defects takes issue with that…

I don’t think we are in disagreement. If a Catholic woman wishes to kill her unborn child because he has a birth defect, she is free to contract this evil and commit mortal sin in any hospital that employs such killers without employer involvement. If, however, her insurance doesn’t cover it, she will have to pay for her evil act out of her own pocket…as it should be.

That was not my point at all - and incidentally, it would probably qualify as a medically-indicated abortion and perhaps covered even under plans that exclude elective abortion, but that’s for another discussion.

However, my question relates to the idea of indirectly (however remotely) supporting immoral practices. Is the insurance company violating your religious rights by requiring you to use that hospital and pay your portion of the bill? Are your state authorities violating your conscience by not providing an accessible hospital where such abortions are disallowed? Extend these arguments to whatever other procedures/practices that violate Catholic faith and that are done in just about every non-Catholic hospital: sterilization, IVF, objectionable end-of-life care…

 

[rlg94086]

That was not my point at all - and incidentally, it would probably qualify as a medically-indicated abortion and perhaps covered even under plans that exclude elective abortion, but that’s for another discussion.

However, my question relates to the idea of indirectly (however remotely) supporting immoral practices. Is the insurance company violating your religious rights by requiring you to use that hospital and pay your portion of the bill? Are your state authorities violating your conscience by not providing an accessible hospital where such abortions are disallowed? Extend these arguments to whatever other procedures/practices that violate Catholic faith and that are done in just about every non-Catholic hospital: sterilization, IVF, objectionable end-of-life care…

You are far from the topic at hand. The question is whether an insurance company or hospital must offer procedures/practices that violate Catholic faith, and if employers must offer such insurance to its employees.

As an individual Catholic, I’m not having my religious liberty violated by choosing to use an insurance company whose hospitals provide such care. It’s my choice to sign up for that insurance, if its offered. The insurance company and my employer are not forcing me too.

 

[rlg94086]

That was not my point at all - and incidentally, it would probably qualify as a medically-indicated abortion and perhaps covered even under plans that exclude elective abortion, but that’s for another discussion.

However, my question relates to the idea of indirectly (however remotely) supporting immoral practices. Is the insurance company violating your religious rights by requiring you to use that hospital and pay your portion of the bill? Are your state authorities violating your conscience by not providing an accessible hospital where such abortions are disallowed? Extend these arguments to whatever other procedures/practices that violate Catholic faith and that are done in just about every non-Catholic hospital: sterilization, IVF, objectionable end-of-life care…

The more I think about your comment regarding the aborting of a child with birth defects, I don’t believe there is any reason to discuss this with you further. I will debate the topic with Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches - not Catholics who are okay with the killing of unborn children because they aren’t perfect. That is pure evil.

 

[seekerz]

You are far from the topic at hand. The question is whether an insurance company or hospital must offer procedures/practices that violate Catholic faith, and if employers must offer such insurance to its employees.

As an individual Catholic, I’m not having my religious liberty violated by choosing to use an insurance company whose hospitals provide such care. It’s my choice to sign up for that insurance, if its offered. The insurance company and my employer are not forcing me too.

As an individual Catholic then, be sure to always live in close proximity to a major Catholic hospital. For the rest of us who don’t, this moral tracking of premium payments to the nth degree are simply incompatible with the realities of daily life. That is very much the topic at hand.

 

[Rence]

The more I think about your comment regarding the aborting of a child with birth defects, I don’t believe there is any reason to discuss this with you further. I will debate the topic with Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches - not Catholics who are okay with the killing of unborn children because they aren’t perfect. That is pure evil.

That’s not fair to Seekerz to misconstrue and reword what was posted. Seekez is prolife and is not okay with the killing of unborn children, perfect or not, and was just commenting on abortion from the persepective of the insurance company.

 

[rlg94086]

That’s not fair to Seekerz to misconstrue and reword what was posted. Seekez is prolife and is not okay with the killing of unborn children, perfect or not, and was just commenting on abortion from the persepective of the insurance company.

Not according to her posts.

 

[seekerz]

The more I think about your comment regarding the aborting of a child with birth defects, I don’t believe there is any reason to discuss this with you further. I will debate the topic with Catholics who actually believe what the Church teaches - not Catholics who are okay with the killing of unborn children because they aren’t perfect. That is pure evil.

What are you referring to? I would certainly hope you are not once again attempting to read my conscience. I simply stated a fact: many large, non-Catholic hospitals, will perform direct abortions in such cases, depending on the circumstances. What’s more, some people/groups who otherwise oppose abortion, have no problem with it in these cases. I do not happen to be one of them.

 

[seekerz]

That’s not fair to Seekerz to misconstrue and reword what was posted. Seekez is prolife and is not okay with the killing of unborn children, perfect or not, and was just commenting on abortion from the persepective of the insurance company.

Thank you, Rence.

 

[seekerz]

Not according to her posts.

If you are trying to get me to respond in kind, today’s not the day. But I will publicly appeal for moderator intervention.

 

[Alan55]

Worse yet, it doesn’t really get rid of the financial implications: if the insurer is the one who is paying for the coverage, do you expect them to simply open their wallet and absorb the costs? Or isn’t it more reasonable to think that they’ll simply raise premiums, so that the institution ends up paying for it (indirectly) in the end, anyway?

The insuror’s costs apparently do not increase and so premiums will not rise.

From the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services website: “When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, “The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.” I have omitted the citations to published literature cited by the HHS.

See: aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

 

[scipio337]

Does this smack of desparation on the part of the Obama admin to anyone else?

And the primary issue still remains: why focus on yet another “compromise” when expanding the religious exemption would have done the job in one fell swoop?

I’m interested to see what the USCCB response to this latest news to be. This was their most recent statement (before the press release).

usccb.org/news/2012/12-048.cfm

At this point, the Obama admin proposal was just a press release. I have not had a chance to read the entire release. I’d like to see how this develops, but based on this administration’s record, I have to admit I’m skeptical.

As even the arch conservative NY Times notes:

A self-insured employer often hires a third-party administrator to handle claims for its employees, in return for fees paid by the employer. The new Obama policy leaves two big questions unanswered:

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

At the same time this announcement was given, it announced that colleges would also have to offer college students the same plans they offer employees.

Ms. Fluke welcomed the new rule on Friday, but said she was disappointed that, under the Obama administration policy, “religiously affiliated schools and employers may delay a year before offering contraceptive coverage.” Ms. Fluke said colleges should not “delay what is now inevitable” and should provide contraceptive coverage as soon as possible.

nytimes.com/2012/03/17/health/policy/obama-administration-says-birth-control-mandate-applies-to-religious-groups-that-insure-themselves.html

I thought under the plan, college students could stay under their parents plan until they were 45 years old or so.

 

[JimG]

Does this smack of desparation on the part of the Obama admin to anyone else?

**And the primary issue still remains: why focus on yet another “compromise” when expanding the religious exemption would have done the job in one fell swoop? **

Exactly. The administration could have saved itself a lot of trouble by providing a full religious exemption in the first place.

Even better, it should drop the mandate entirely. There’s no need to mandate coverage for contraception, which is already so widely available as to make the “need” for a mandate laughable.

It just goes to show where this administration puts its priorities. Contraception coverage is the most pressing issue for the nation? Really? The overarching debt overhang is just a minor nuisance, apparently, compared to the need for contraception.

 

[scipio337]

The insuror’s costs apparently do not increase and so premiums will not rise.

From the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services website: “When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, “The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.” I have omitted the citations to published literature cited by the HHS.

See: aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

The question is still open as to who will pay these 3rd party fees.

We can save money by preventing pregnancy! Why won’t the Church sign up for that?

 

[Corki]

The insuror’s costs apparently do not increase and so premiums will not rise.

The premiums ALWAYS rise. (many companys are reporting a 30% increase due to Obamacare provisions, all of which aren’t even in place yet)

The big question about this “coverage” is who is paying for it?

If the insurance company is “providing” the payments to the pharmacies, they are building it into the existing premium structure. It will either be added onto the premiums of only the exempt employers or to all of the companies represented by a given insurance company.

If the coverage for contraceptives and sterilizations is truly divorced from an employer with a conscience issue, then any woman who does not have coverage for contraception - whether due to not being covered by an employers plan or any other reason - should be able to contact an insurance company and get her contraception and sterilization for free. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

And what about the men? The original HHS mandate language was not woman-specific. The “compromise” specifically mentions making these contraceptives and sterilization procedures available to women who work for companies who claim the exemption. Does this mean that men’s sterilization drugs and procedures are still required to be covered?

The whole “compromise” is full of vague statements, unworkable logistics and smoke and mirrors.

 

[Rence]

Exactly. The administration could have saved itself a lot of trouble by providing a full religious exemption in the first place.

They did provide a full religious exemption: the employers citing religious differences don’t have to do anything. They can opt out. It’s their employees who apply for the rider, and a their party that processes the rider.

It just goes to show where this administration puts its priorities. Contraception coverage is the most pressing issue for the nation? Really? The overarching debt overhang is just a minor nuisance, apparently, compared to the need for contraception.

Actually, with the money the government provides to support pregant women, and support their children until the age of 18, I think they have reason to make contraception more available (and more affordable). It’s cheaper to pay for contraception, than to pay for a pregnancy, and a child’s medical care and food for the next 18 years.

 

[JimG]

Let’s see, contraception saves money by preventing people. Maybe that works for the insurance companies in the short run. Does it work in the long run? We are already entering a demographic decline in which there are fewer and fewer new workers to support programs such as Social Security and Medicare. That means that the fewer new workers will be supporting more and more older retirees and nonworkers, leading to more economic decline.

People are the ultimate economic renewable resource, yet the government is here treating them as if they were a mere expense item. I suppose it doesn’t expect that people will ever be productive? Or is that just the way the government trains them?

 

[PeterPaschasius]

The insuror’s costs apparently do not increase and so premiums will not rise.

From the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services website: “When medical costs associated with unintended pregnancies are taken into account, including costs of prenatal care, pregnancy complications, and deliveries, the net effect on premiums is close to zero. One study author concluded, “The message is simple: regardless of payment mechanism or contraceptive method, contraception saves money.” I have omitted the citations to published literature cited by the HHS.

See: aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2012/contraceptives/ib.shtml

This seems to assume a lot.

1. that contraceptive use would increase (i.e. women aren’t already using contraception).
2. that pregnancies would decrease.

I doubt they have data to back those assumptions up.

 

[karaleigh]

Not unless the federal gubbermint is promising to pay the employer premiums for the self-insured universities and hospitals.

Hey, we have to protect that “right” to free contraception! It’s been our birthright for 2 1/2 months!

Yeh! What will abortionist want next?
:aok:

 

[karaleigh]

Semantics are very important in these matters. Laws, rules and regulations MUST be written clearly and carefully because the words have meanings and the meanings are important.

Let me ask you a question - If birth control were completely removed as a required provision of the health care package…Just how would this restrict your “Choice”. Isn’t birth control universally available now? If you want to take Birth control NOW - before “obama-care” goes into effect, what is stopping you?

Peace
James

You have well thought out your position with this issue. From the above I read more into what is written. It seems you have gone well beyond the laws, rules and regulations without getting responses from me; thereby, causing some ambiguity on your part. Mulit-voices when only one is necessary can cause confused debates…of which the ambiguity has met its maker. I believe the word “NOW” is the cause. Perhaps a rethink on what was cited it would be possible to clarify your position before my answering incorrectly would be a necessary order of a personal legal forum.

 

[karaleigh]

Nicely put. It is also the responsibility of those women who Claim the title Catholic to embrace the information that the Church provides and to incorporate it into their lives for it comes from the one who is the Lord and King of us all, Jesus Christ.

Excuse me for saying so but this statement is just plain foolish. I realize to an extent what you are trying to say, but this is an extremely poor and fundamentally incorrect way to say it.
Females ARE the tool for world population, in conjunction with males. World population comes from no other source. It is as God has made it.
This is not a “male chauvinist” attitude but a simple recognition of the facts of the case in how God arranged the biology of procreation. Male and female he made them.

As a Christian and a Catholic, our bodies belong to God. Any “fighting” we do about our bodies needs to be for the purpose of glorifying God and building up His Kingdom.

Finally, if the insurance provider is the cause for sinfulness, stop the insurance coverage. Send women out the door to get coverage somewhere else if the mire though of the insurer draws your sword. But, please stop taking over the female body as though they a carcass to battle for the church. The Catholic Church population is growing, help it to continue to. You won’t if you tell women to sit in the pews with a swollen belly as service to the church.
:banghead:
I think that perhaps you have a misunderstanding about what the Church is fighting here with the HHS mandate…This is about religious liberty, not the availability of birth control.

Peace
James

Sounds like my own words on obeying the instructions of the priests–quote below. Thanks for the reminder, perhaps you will be enlightened by my remarks on other issues. Try this one…women are not your tool to ensure our world’s population. If that were so then who are you, as a Brother in the mesh of things. Men who are able to cleave to a women would be the ‘entitle’ proliferating Catholic thereby eligible to respond to the demands of populations. A New York Senator once said that a person take a vow to remove themselves from creation, that is child making, then who are they to set standards for those who are willing to create families. I agree with the New York Senator.

It is also the responsibility of those women who Claim the title Catholic to embrace the information that the Church provides and to incorporate it into their lives for it comes from the one who is the Lord and King of us all, Jesus Christ.

Back to the thread. With birth control away from universities, women can make better choices. This new decision cancelling Plan B in vending machines is a great step away from malicious single parent family proliferation. My thoughts.