Birth control prevents pregnancy and is abortion and its not medically nessecary. Any pregnancy requires healthcare coverage for a healthy baby.Is a violation of religious freedom to require that employer insurance plans cover out-of-wedlock pregnancies to the same extent they cover in-wedlock pregnancies? What if the employer has an objection? Is this any different from birth control?
A child is not a mortal sin.Is a violation of religious freedom to require that employer insurance plans cover out-of-wedlock pregnancies to the same extent they cover in-wedlock pregnancies? What if the employer has an objection? Is this any different from birth control?
If a teacher violates the morals clause of the contract that they signed they may be disciplined according to that contract.It’s fairly common for Catholic schools to fire unmarried female teachers who get pregnant - so they will lose all their health coverage, not just for the birth.
Does that make a difference legally? The employer may think it is a sin. What is the legal difference between an employer not covering birth control for religious reasons and not covering out-of-wedlock pregnancies.for religious reasons. Or what if the employer has religious objections to female doctors. Can he exclude covering care.from female doctors?A child is not a mortal sin.
What if it’s rape?It’s fairly common for Catholic schools to fire unmarried female teachers who get pregnant - so they will lose all their health coverage, not just for the birth.
Contraception is a gave sin always for every single human being on the face of the earth. The govm’t is trying to strongarm Catholic orgs into paying for something that is a sin.Does that make a difference legally? The employer may think it is a sin. What is the legal difference between an employer not covering birth control for religious reasons and not covering out-of-wedlock pregnancies.for religious reasons. Or what if the employer has religious objections to female doctors. Can he exclude covering care.from female doctors?
I have never seen being a victim of a crime listed as a violation of a morals clause.What if it’s rape?
What I’m talking about is what if the woman was raped and she’s too traumatized to talk about it or report it? And she’s pregnant then?I have never seen being a victim of a crime listed as a violation of a morals clause.
You are losing me.What I’m talking about is what if the woman was raped and she’s too traumatized to talk about it or report it? And she’s pregnant then?
I mean there’s all sorts of scenarios for this…
Some years ago when my husband was starting a business, our family insurance would not cover maternity-related costs. A separate add-on insurance was required for that. Without the add-on, the baby would have been covered after birth as a member of the family, but any “pre-existing” conditions would not have been covered.Is a violation of religious freedom to require that employer insurance plans cover out-of-wedlock pregnancies to the same extent they cover in-wedlock pregnancies? What if the employer has an objection? Is this any different from birth control?
somyears ago when my husband was starting a business, our family insurance would not cover maternity-related costs. A separate add-on insurance was required for that. Without the add-on, the baby would have been covered after birth as a member of the family, but any “pre-existing” conditions (ETA: birth defects, genetics problems, problems resulting from the birth) would not have been covered.Is a violation of religious freedom to require that employer insurance plans cover out-of-wedlock pregnancies to the same extent they cover in-wedlock pregnancies? What if the employer has an objection? Is this any different from birth control?
Are you suggesting that government should determine what things are actually sins, as opposed to just respecting people’s beliefs about what things are sins. If an employer thinks that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a sin but that birth control is not, should the government tell him that his beliefs are wrong and give him less protection than someone who believes birth control is a sin?Contraception is a gave sin always for every single human being on the face of the earth. The govm’t is trying to strongarm Catholic orgs into paying for something that is a sin.
If somehow the govm’t were trying to force Churches to pay for out of wedlock sex (maybe forcing them to pay for prostitutes) that would be a suitable analogy. Babies are not sins.
I think that first we need to find out if coverage for sinvle women normally includes maternity coverage or not.Are you suggesting that government should determine what things are actually sins, as opposed to just respecting people’s beliefs about what things are sins. If an employer thinks that an out-of-wedlock pregnancy is a sin but that birth control is not, should the government tell him that his beliefs are wrong and give him less protection than someone who believes birth control is a sin?
Actually it is quiet common for married women and family plans to not cover maternity care. That must be negotiated separately with the health providers or pay for a maternity rider, which the insured pays for and the employer does not. There is a lady on these forums who has decided to forgo the rider and just pay in advance for her maternity care.I think that first we need to find out if coverage for sinvle women normally includes maternity coverage or not.
Yes, but the OP is asking about benefits for single women. I cited the policy for family coverage as evidence that we needed to first see if single women are covered for maternity before asking if employers’ redusing to pay for that is moral, a question which may be moot.Actually it is quiet common for married women and family plans to not cover maternity care. That must be negotiated separately with the health providers or pay for a maternity rider, which the insured pays for and the employer does not. There is a lady on these forums who has decided to forgo the rider and just pay in advance for her maternity care.
I don’t think it is normally broken up like that. Either the employer provides maternity coverage or it doesn’t. There are not separate plans for married and unmarried women.Yes, but the OP is asking about benefits for single women. I cited the policy for family coverage as evidence that we needed to first see if single women are covered for maternity before asking if employers’ redusing to pay for that is moral, a question which may be moot.
Ahhh, now I understand. I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear, I meant women who were getting health insurance just for themselves, not as a family. Individual vs family? Would that be the right words? So I figured that if a married woman, who I assumed would get a family plan, wasn’t covered for maternity, surely a woman getting insurance just for herself alone would not be covered for maternity.I don’t think it is normally broken up like that. Either the employer provides maternity coverage or it doesn’t. There are not separate plans for married and unmarried women.
Like I said it is not uncommon for employers to forgo maternity coverage all together for married or unmarried, employees or spouses of employees. So the question is rather moot.
If the company does offer maternity I don’t think I have ever seen an insurance company willing to separate the married from the single. They cover everyone in the same group the same.