Washington State Bill Could Mandate Abortion Coverage

[Catholic_Press]

More…

 

[_Abyssinia]

But surely such a bill opposes the first amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

[L_piperatus]

…and 28 states already mandate coverage for contraceptive/abortive drugs and surgical sterilizations, therefore the Catholic Church is disingenuous in its protests against this new federal mandate issued by the Dept. of HHS and Kathleen Sebelius, blah blah blah…

So, if this new abortion coverage atrocity passes in Washington state, we will soon see the Obama cheerleaders calling for a similar federal mandate, because you see, certain states already mandate abortion coverage, and it’s all about women’s health, and the evil Catholic Church trying to kill women by denying them important women’s health coverage and yada yada yada

 

[_Abyssinia]

…and 28 states already mandate coverage for contraceptive/abortive drugs and surgical sterilizations, therefore the Catholic Church is disingenuous in its protests against this new federal mandate issued by the Dept. of HHS and Kathleen Sebelius, blah blah blah…

So, if this new abortion coverage atrocity passes in Washington state, we will soon see the Obama cheerleaders calling for a similar federal mandate, because you see, certain states already mandate abortion coverage, and it’s all about women’s health, and the evil Catholic Church trying to kill women by denying them important women’s health coverage and yada yada yada

USSCB says:

The federal mandate is much stricter than existing state mandates. HHS chose the narrowest state-level religious exemption as the model for its own. That exemption was drafted by the ACLU and exists in only 3 states (New York,California,Oregon). Even without a religious exemption, religious employers can already avoid the contraceptive mandates in 28 statesby self-insuring their prescription drug coverage, dropping that coverage altogether, or opting for regulation under a federal law (ERISA) that pre-empts state law. TheHHS mandate closes off all these avenues of relief.

usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/conscience-protection/index.cfm

**Is there precedent for such a broad mandate for contraception and sterilization coverage?
**
No. Until now, no federal law required private health plans to cover these items. Even state contraceptive mandates (enacted in approximately half the states), with rare exception, do not require sterilization coverage, and do not apply to all health plans. As a general rule, state mandates apply to insured plans that provide prescription drug coverage.

HHS says its language is very similar to religious exemptions in many state contraceptive mandates, but this is incorrect. Most states with an exemption from such a mandate provide broader conscience protection than HHS has authorized in its final interim rule. In addition, HHS’s reliance on state law ignores several things: (1) as noted above, the state laws themselves are not as sweeping as HHS’s mandate; (2) almost half the states impose no contraceptive mandate at all, so they “exempt” everyone; (3) some states which do have a mandate exclude some drugs like “emergency” contraception. Thus even in the states, the scope of this mandate is largely unprecedented.

cacatholic.org/index.php/issues2/religious-liberty/conscience-rights/190-background-mandated-contraceptive-and-sterilization-coverage

 

[Suudy]

Of course, our self-identifying Catholic governor, will happily sign the bill, if her concerns over federal funds are alleviated.
State Gov. Chris Gregoire is concerned about whether the law violates the Hyde-Weldon Amendment, part of the annual federal Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services appropriations bill. That amendment bars mandatory abortion coverage in any health plan that receives federal funds.
Interesting that her concern is over the Hyde-Weldon amendment and HHS appropriations, but not the fact that abortion coverage would be mandated.