Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

[juliee]

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC – The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

 

[trailrunner1208]

Wow, I can’t believe he is doing that. I think he should accept the religious beliefs of others and let them decide whether they want to offer abortions and contraceptives in their hospitals and such. I am strongly Pro-Life and can not imagine aborting a baby, its completely sick and wrong and if you were having sex in the first place it shouldn’t be for pleasure it should be for bringing a life into this world for you to nurture and care for. To me sex is a tool for creating babies and no more, to think that we have to offer contraceptives just so people can go at it without any purpose is just sick. If you are going to have sex be sure you are ready for a baby and be sure you know what it involves. Sex isn’t something you do for fun it is something that creates another human being. Obama thinks he can try to get the Catholics and other Christians on his side but he’s wrong, we stick firmly to our faith and will never let it go.

God bless you!
Nick

 

[Etu_Malku]

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC – The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

Good for him, we have enough unwanted children in the world

 

[SonCatcher]

“The services the religious organization opposes won’t be listed in the contract, but the insurance companies will give it to the employees anyway,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “Insurance companies will justify providing the coverage that the religious charity opposes by swearing that birth control coverage doesn’t actually cost anything because it’s cheaper than pregnancy services, so it’s just a free perk. The administration will argue that people of faith should be fine with this arrangement, because they can tell their conscience that they aren’t really paying for the objectionable coverage and they didn’t really sign up for it anyway.”

In other words: no change.

 

[robwar]

don’t be fooled by Obama, he is now saying that all insurance companies must provide
services. Since Catholic institutions are mandated to buy insurance then they are still forced to provide contraception. Also don’t be fooled by the false 90% of Catholic women use contraception. They have never interviewed me!

 

[SonCatcher]

I have never seen a restaurant menu that listed the parsley on the side of the plate. Yet, it’s there. Since it’s there, you can be sure the customer is paying for it, regardless of whether he eats it.

 

[JRKH]

This is nothing more than a shell game.

If the government wants to make this free and separate from the employer insurance they can bloody well offer it directly from the government…Anyone walking into a Doctors office or clinic would simply say - send the bill to Obama…

I’d still hate it, but at least it would be honest.

This is just semantics.

Peace
James

 

[JimG]

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC – The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

From the article:

"Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” he said. “This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law.”

The Administration is going through a lot of contortions to make violation of religious liberty sound acceptable.

 

[St_Francis]

don’t be fooled by Obama, he is now saying that all insurance companies must provide
services. Since Catholic institutions are mandated to buy insurance then they are still forced to provide contraception. Also don’t be fooled by the false 90% of Catholic women use contraception. They have never interviewed me!

The actual number of Catholic women of child-bearing age actually using abc at any given time is only around 30%. The 98% number refers to any use, whether once or before converting or whatever.

And even abc-using Catholics may well side with the Church on this.

 

[St_Francis]

OK, so what about voluntary sterilization? That’s not cheap like abc, so I doubt the insurance companies will be “saving” so much money that they will be able to include that for free.

So istm that the Catholic emploers will be paying for all this coverage, because the insurance company will roll it into what the Church organizations are charged for the insurance they are “officially” offering.

This doesn’t really look good at all. Esp considering that the only thing keeping abortion out of the equation is O’s executive order.

 

[promethius]

From the article:
"Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs,” he said. “This is not just a problem for church-affiliated hospitals and charities. Under these rules, a small business owner with religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs and contraception must either violate his religious beliefs or violate the law.”
The Administration is going through a lot of contortions to make violation of religious liberty sound acceptable.

They’re also going through a lot of contortions to make us look like ignorant back-woods supersitious hillbillies. The article reads:

“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” the White House said on the conference call LifeNews listened to because they “understand how contraception works” and it “makes sense financially.”

Um… WHAT??? I KNOW how contraception works. In fact, I KNOW how it works better than the bean counters in the white house because I understand the moral ramifications of aborting cells, as well as the moral problems with secondary participation in mortal sin. We’re not objecting to contraception because we’re ignorant and don’t know how it works… we object precisely BECAUSE we know how it works…

 

[JRKH]

OK, so what about voluntary sterilization? That’s not cheap like abc, so I doubt the insurance companies will be “saving” so much money that they will be able to include that for free.

So istm that the Catholic emploers will be paying for all this coverage, because the insurance company will roll it into what the Church organizations are charged for the insurance they are “officially” offering.

This doesn’t really look good at all. Esp considering that the only thing keeping abortion out of the equation is O’s executive order.

EXACTLY!!!

How many times have we heard about how shoplifting effects the prices for everyone else. How car insurance premiums have to be adjusted because of the overall $$$ paid out vs the $$$ coming in??

The only way that such a thing could be shown to be fair is if those companies opting out of providing these services have a lower premium than those who agree to include them. But then every employer would choose to not offer them… and the insurance companies would be forced to “spread the cost” of what is essentially an “unfunded mandate”.

Peace
James

 

[TimothyH]

They’re also going through a lot of contortions to make us look like ignorant back-woods supersitious hillbillies. The article reads:

“We are actually more comfortable having the insurance industry offer and market this to women than religious institutions,” the White House said on the conference call LifeNews listened to because they “understand how contraception works” and it “makes sense financially.”

Um… WHAT??? I KNOW how contraception works. In fact, I KNOW how it works better than the bean counters in the white house because I understand the moral ramifications of aborting cells, as well as the moral problems with secondary participation in mortal sin. We’re not objecting to contraception because we’re ignorant and don’t know how it works… we object precisely BECAUSE we know how it works…

This is a very good post. You are exactly correct.

Apart from the issue of the Church being forced to contribute to the eternal damnation of its own members, the administration thinks they know better, and know how to better educate Church members.

Thomas Sowell wrote about this very thing in his book, “Vision of the Annointed”.

They think we are simply confused, and they are going to educate us. They do the same thing with gay marriage, euthanasia, and a whole host of other issues.

-Tim-

 

[Joe_5859]

This is nothing more than a shell game.

If the government wants to make this free and separate from the employer insurance they can bloody well offer it directly from the government…Anyone walking into a Doctors office or clinic would simply say - send the bill to Obama…

I’d still hate it, but at least it would be honest.

This is just semantics.

Peace
James

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Little_Mary]

I’m a little confused…isn’t that how it is now? There are insurance companies that will pay for abortions, etc.?

 

[SonCatcher]

I’m a little confused…isn’t that how it is now? There are insurance companies that will pay for abortions, etc.?

Insurance companies normally pay for what the contract covers and nothing more. For example: my current contract does not cover physical therapy. I happen to miss that coverage as I needed it last year (fortunately, that was under a different contract). When it was time to re-enroll, neither plan offered would cover it at all. If I were to get injured again, I’d have to pay for it myself.

In this case, the administration is requiring insurance companies to omit some text of the contract without actually disallowing the service. This is a disingenuous “solution”.

 

[Khalid]

The actual number of Catholic women of child-bearing age actually using abc at any given time is only around 30%. The 98% number refers to any use, whether once or before converting or whatever.

And even abc-using Catholics may well side with the Church on this.

I figured as much, because I can’t imagine more than 50% of the atheistic population regularly practices “‘safe’ sex ‘for “fun”’” as they call it. Why would the rate be so much higher amongst nominal Catholics?

Three-deep scare quotes is a new record, I think.

 

[Nate13]

This is a mandate behind a mandate. An example of this kind of maneuver is this:

1. The government hands you a gun and mandates that you shoot it at a particular spot.
2. The government then mandates to someone else that they place their head in the same spot they have mandated you to shoot your gun at.
3. You shoot and the person dies, but you should be fine with that because the government did not actually mandate that you kill someone, they just mandated that you shoot your gun at a particular spot.

When you use the example above and apply their reasoning to the idea of murder it is easy to see just how insane it really is that they think this makes everything ok.

 

[JRKH]

Insurance companies normally pay for what the contract covers and nothing more. For example: my current contract does not cover physical therapy. I happen to miss that coverage as I needed it last year (fortunately, that was under a different contract). When it was time to re-enroll, neither plan offered would cover it at all. If I were to get injured again, I’d have to pay for it myself.

**In this case, the administration is requiring insurance companies to omit some text of the contract without actually disallowing the service. **This is a disingenuous “solution”.

This is a wonderful description of what they are proposing.
As one article put it, “a distinction without a difference”.

Peace
James

 

[Leegal]

Obama Revises Mandate: Free Abortion-Causing Drugs for Women

Washington, DC – The Obama administration has revised its controversial mandate that had forced religious employers to pay for health insurance coverage that includes birth control and drugs like Plan B, the morning after pill, and ella that can cause abortions.

lifenews.com/2012/02/10/obama-revises-mandate-free-abortion-causing-drugs-for-women/

It won’t work. First, even entirely free to the Catholic organizations, I expect the Bishops to reject it. It will still give the implicit appearance that the Catholic Church supports ABC and abortificants. It’s not the cost that’s the issue. It’s the substance of the force of the federal government upon a religious institution to go against doctrine that is the objection and the violation – not how much it would cost.

Second, the insurance companies will revolt. Insurance companies come under the jurisdiction of the state and are businesses. The federal government cannot set policy nor rates for insurance companies. In effect, this has the appearance of “nationalization” of the insurance companies. I expect the insurance companies to file suits of their own to add to the growing pile of suits that this law has generated.

The Administration has now painted itself into a corner. The Catholic Church opposes the new mandates (and will continue to do so) and now the so called “compromise” will put the insurance companies up against the administration with this new “revised” mandate.