Religious freedom--No coverage for out-of-wedlock pregnancy

[Dan_McVay]

If an employer provides health care, pregnancy coverage is required. With Obamacare making insurance required, should employers be exempted if they have a religious objection?

"Health Insurance
Any health insurance provided by an employer must cover expenses for pregnancy-related conditions on the same basis as costs for other medical conditions. An employer need not provide health insurance for expenses arising from abortion, except where the life of the mother is endangered.

Pregnancy-related expenses should be reimbursed exactly as those incurred for other medical conditions, whether payment is on a fixed basis or a percentage of reasonable-and-customary-charge basis.

The amounts payable by the insurance provider can be limited only to the same extent as amounts payable for other conditions. No additional, increased, or larger deductible can be imposed.

Employers must provide the same level of health benefits for spouses of male employees as they do for spouses of female employees."

eeoc.gov/facts/fs-preg.html

 

[Dan_McVay]

Should an employer be able to provide coverage that will pay for an abortion for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but nothing else, if that employer have a religious belief that the only proper care for an out-of-wedlock fetus is abortion?

 

[Castello]

Should an employer be able to provide coverage that will pay for an abortion for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but nothing else, if that employer have a religious belief that the only proper care for an out-of-wedlock fetus is abortion?

If there were some bonafide evil religion, our Constitution would apply.

 

[St_Francis]

Should an employer be able to provide coverage that will pay for an abortion for an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, but nothing else, if that employer have a religious belief that the only proper care for an out-of-wedlock fetus is abortion?

There is no religion like that.

However, while I as a Catholic do no believe that others should be forced to pay so that others can sin, since everyone sins, I don’t think it’s a problem to pay for the results, esp if the result is a baby, who didn’t do anything.

ETA: IE, we pay for the effects of people’s gluttony and for substance abuse rehabs, etc

 

[JimG]

There is no need for every insurance plan to be exactly the same. There is no need for every employer’s benefit plan to be exactly the same.

Employees can consider what a plan does or does not cover before deciding whether to work for a particular employer. Some employers offer no health insurance coverage at all. And that number will increase because of the HHS mandate.
It will also increase just because of the fact of Obamacare.

 

[ryecroft]

If a teacher violates the morals clause of the contract that they signed they may be disciplined according to that contract.

No one forces people to work for Catholic schools. They are free to go work anywhere else, they know the morals clause language when they sign the contract.

So if a teacher did ‘slip up’, then she would have two choices - continue with the pregnancy and loose health coverage and source of income or have an abortion to which no one is the wiser - hmmm… I can’t see that being a very difficult decision when someone’s back is up against the wall. It doesn’t seem quite right to me.

God Bless
Rye

 

[manualman]

It’s a good question and there is a good answer.

The problem with the HHS mandate isn’t ONLY that it forces coverage that may violate religious conscience. It is that it violates religious conscience for a goal that is NOT a provision of a fundamental medical need. The dubious good of subsidized contraception and sterilization does not rise to the level where coercion is morally required.

A pregnant woman needs care, regardless of how she got that way or her life and that of the baby are at risk. A stabbing victim may NEED a blood transfusion to survive, even if his employer is a Jehovah’s Witness. Somebody who wants to get it on and make sure no pregnancy results is not in a grave situation that requires coercion of others not involved. They can simply walk to Walgreens and spend $5 on some condoms. There is NO justification for violating people’s consciences in the matter. This is only about making everybody pay for things that only some want. If people want contraceptives, let them buy their own. If they don’t want them, don’t make them pay for them. Isn’t that the pro-choice position? Where are all the ardent pro-choicers now?

 

[St_Francis]

So if a teacher did ‘slip up’, then she would have two choices - continue with the pregnancy and loose health coverage and source of income or have an abortion to which no one is the wiser - hmmm… I can’t see that being a very difficult decision when someone’s back is up against the wall. It doesn’t seem quite right to me.

God Bless
Rye

At some point, people need to consider the xonsequences of their actiins. It is usually betterto do this before committing the action.

The teacher signed an agreement saying that she would uphold the moral standards of her employer. It is part of her employment contract. In the same way, there are employers out there whose employees are not permitted to smoke. If an employee is found smoking, he loses his job and insurance.

 

[kama3]

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.

Seriously?! In Europe:

• it is illegal to fire a pregnant woman
• it is illegal to have a clause in the contract allowing termination of employment in case of pregnancy
• after delivery, the woman is entitled to a paid leave, which is between 15 and 52 weeks depending on country, and, of course, she cannot be fired during this period either
• and all these protection apply to an unmarried cathehesis teacher in a Catholic institution who gets pregant by a priest

How come a supposed culture of death does everything to remove incentive for abortion while a supposedly pro-life organization incentivizes its female employees to terminate preganancy?

 

[kama3]

It is that it violates religious conscience for a goal that is NOT a provision of a fundamental medical need.

That is not true in general:

The hormones in “the Pill” can also be used to treat other medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, adenomyosis, menstruation-related anemia and painful menstruation (dysmenorrhea). In addition, oral contraceptives are often prescribed as medication for mild or moderate acne.[116] The pill can also induce menstruation on a regular schedule for women bothered by irregular menstrual cycles or disorders where there is dysfunctional uterine bleeding. In addition, the Pill provides some protection against breast growth that is not cancer, ectopic pregnancy, vaginal dryness and menopause-related painful intercourse.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Non-contraceptive_uses

 

[Castello]

So if a teacher did ‘slip up’, then she would have two choices - continue with the pregnancy and loose health coverage and source of income or have an abortion to which no one is the wiser - hmmm… I can’t see that being a very difficult decision when someone’s back is up against the wall. It doesn’t seem quite right to me.

God Bless
Rye

That would depend on the school and the administration. In most cases I’d imagine that the school administration would help in every way they could. No one EVER said that it is defacto fire a teacher who “slips up”.

 

[Castello]

Seriously?! In Europe:

• it is illegal to fire a pregnant woman
• it is illegal to have a clause in the contract allowing termination of employment in case of pregnancy
• after delivery, the woman is entitled to a paid leave, which is between 15 and 52 weeks depending on country, and, of course, she cannot be fired during this period either
• and all these protection apply to an unmarried cathehesis teacher in a Catholic institution who gets pregant by a priest

How come a supposed culture of death does everything to remove incentive for abortion while a supposedly pro-life organization incentivizes its female employees to terminate preganancy?

How tragic that your religious liberties have been stripped away.

 

[St_Francis]

That is not true in general:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill#Non-contraceptive_uses

While it is true that the Pill is ometimes taken as a medical treatment, the vast majority of women using it for birth control, and it is in that context that we are discussing it.

 

[kama3]

While it is true that the Pill is ometimes taken as a medical treatment, the vast majority of women using it for birth control, and it is in that context that we are discussing it.

Except the insurer cannot tell if the pill is going to be used for contraception or because of an actual medical indication. Not without the breach of patient-doctor confidentiality anyway.
What you are advocating for here is, essentially, denial of coverage of the whole class of drugs because they have potentially immoral uses.

 

[kama3]

How tragic that your religious liberties have been stripped away.

I’m intrigued by your outlook on freedom of religion. Could you elaborate?

 

[Allegra]

Seriously?! In Europe:

• it is illegal to fire a pregnant woman

QUOTE]

Really? It’s illegal to fire a pregnant woman? What if she’s dipping into the till every night at closing? What if she’s molesting small children? What if she starts calling customers the N-word? I find that very hard to believe.

At any rate, the school isn’t firing her because she’s pregnant. They’re firing her because she’s having sex outside of marriage, which is against their conduct code. Also, the schools don’t always fire her. Sometimes they will put her on administrative leave until the baby is born.

 

[kama3]

Really? It’s illegal to fire a pregnant woman? What if she’s dipping into the till every night at closing? What if she’s molesting small children? What if she starts calling customers the N-word? I find that very hard to believe.

At any rate, the school isn’t firing her because she’s pregnant.

It’s legal to fire her for a gross misconduct: roydens.co.uk/content19.htm , but not for a reason directly connected with pregnancy. And it’s obvious that having sex is related to pregnancy . There is UK case law about this very situation I linked upthread.

Also, in Europe, a contract attempting to regulate private sex life of the employee would not only be void, it would be laughed out of court.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Sometimes they will put her on administrative leave until the baby is born.

In this case, it is typical that the administration will require the woman to put the baby up for adoption in order for her to regain her job.

 

[St_Francis]

Except the insurer cannot tell if the pill is going to be used for contraception or because of an actual medical indication. Not without the breach of patient-doctor confidentiality anyway.
What you are advocating for here is, essentially, denial of coverage of the whole class of drugs because they have potentially immoral uses.

I don’t think so. Insurance companies know what the patient is being treated for.

 

[Castello]

I’m intrigued by your outlook on freedom of religion. Could you elaborate?

That religious orgs are not permitted to require their employees to agree to a morals clause. Tragic.