Wisconsin Diocese offers birth control insurance, but warns employees not to use it

[PaulinVA]

Why in the world are Bishops acceding to laws they consider immoral instead of resisting and either being sued or going to jail?

They just complain a lot and then do what the state tells them to do.

To reply to myself…

If there is a state law that all plans must include birth control coverage, then the carriers would only be offering plans that comply with the law - that is, covering birth control.

How does this change the discussion, if there are no plans available in the state that don’t cover birth control?

 

[irishpatrick]

Under 1st amendment protections a Church should not have to provide insurance that covers BC. Yet, the left could not care less about the 1st amendment, they make they known on a regular basis.

 

[manualman]

I went to college in Madison (20ish years ago now - wow!). The culture there is dramatically secular humanist and militantly anti-theistic. I know the bishop has changed since I was there and from everything I’ve heard, I wish the current one had been there when I was (is that a delicate enough way of saying it?).

Pray for bishop Morlino to have both wisdom and courage.

 

[Rence]

The cost of the plans is far less important that obeying God’s commandments. Making those plans available through the Church is tantamount to placing the employees in the occasion of sin. I know compassion is a strong emotion but I’d hate to stand at the final judgment and try to pass through on the arguments you present. Stand our ground and force the issue into the courts.

Obviously cost is an issue though, because the article says that the diocese tried to offer their own insurance, and could not continue because of the high cost, which resulted in them going back to the state-mandated insurance. I’m quite sure that putting together a fund to pay for individual insurance premiums would also be too costly for the diocese as they would have to allot more for each employee.

The diocese can do a few things:

• they can withdraw insurance across the board for their employees, and penalize all their employees and their families
• they can withdraw medication coverage, and penalize all their employees and their families
• they can try to appeal to the courts for a conscience clause to have birth control not covered under the medication coverage on the grounds that they are a religious entity and it’s against the rules of that religious entity to provide birth control coverage and deal with the judgement

Since they already tried to finance their own insurance and failed, providing a fund for individual insurance is not practical since it would be more costly than their own insurance.

And even if they did go out on a limb and provide an insurance fund, that would not stop individual members from selecting services contrary to the Church such as contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion. The diocese knows that giving the employees this freedom would be worse than just covering contraception in the plan they already have in place.

Right now what they have in place is no different than provding a communal fund for premiums, except that they have more control over it by not covering abortion or sterilizations.

Just because the coverage is there for contraception, doesn’t mean employees will use it.

 

[Rence]

Under 1st amendment protections a Church should not have to provide insurance that covers BC. Yet, the left could not care less about the 1st amendment, they make they known on a regular basis.

That’s not correct. The diocese can provide it’s own insurance, and build it’s own policy. By using the State’s insurance policies, they don’t have a say in what’s covered. They CAN have a say in what’s covered if they go back to using their own insurance. If you’re using the State’s insurance policies, you get the State’s policies and all that’s covered under the State’s policies.

From the first article:

The law, which took effect Jan. 1, requires all commercial insurance policies with a drug benefit to cover prescription contraceptives. Self-insured policies are exempt.

If you can use your own insurance and build your own policy, you don’t have the right to complain about what the state mandates if you have the freedom to not use them, and rather use your own.

If it’s that important to the diocese, they should appeal to the Vatican for more resources so that they can offer their own insurance. Or have a fund raiser to help pay for the extra cost…not have the State policies insure them and then complain that they don’t like the policy.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Obviously cost is an issue though, because the article says that the diocese tried to offer their own insurance, and could not continue because of the high cost, which resulted in them going back to the state-mandated insurance. I’m quite sure that putting together a fund to pay for individual insurance premiums would also be too costly for the diocese as they would have to allot more for each employee.

The diocese can do a few things:

• they can withdraw insurance across the board for their employees, and penalize all their employees and their families
• they can withdraw medication coverage, and penalize all their employees and their families
• they can try to appeal to the courts for a conscience clause to have birth control not covered under the medication coverage on the grounds that they are a religious entity and it’s against the rules of that religious entity to provide birth control coverage and deal with the judgement

Since they already tried to finance their own insurance and failed, providing a fund for individual insurance is not practical since it would be more costly than their own insurance.

And even if they did go out on a limb and provide an insurance fund, that would not stop individual members from selecting services contrary to the Church such as contraceptives, sterilizations and abortion. The diocese knows that giving the employees this freedom would be worse than just covering contraception in the plan they already have in place.

Right now what they have in place is no different than provding a communal fund for premiums, except that they have more control over it by not covering abortion or sterilizations.

Just because the coverage is there for contraception, doesn’t mean employees will use it.

Sounds like we are each comfortable with our positions so we simply agree to disagree. I’m comfortable that my position does not require that I rationalize it in any way with my faith.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Make sure the thread title matches the article title.
Thank you

 

[Tigg]

Why in the world are Bishops acceding to laws they consider immoral instead of resisting and either being sued or going to jail?

They just complain a lot and then do what the state tells them to do.

Because they have become politicians?

 

[Hypatia]

Under 1st amendment protections a Church should not have to provide insurance that covers BC. Yet, the left could not care less about the 1st amendment, they make they known on a regular basis.

Someone pointed this out already, but this seems to be the key passage from the article

The law, which took effect Jan. 1, requires all commercial insurance policies with a drug benefit to cover prescription contraceptives. Self-insured policies are exempt.

The paragraph that leads off the article saying the state is forcing the Catholic diocese to do something is just inaccurate. The law deals with commercial insurance companies operating in the state of Wisconsin. The diocese was free to self-insure but chose not to.

I am curious if this really changes very much from the standpoint of the diocese? If they were using commercial insurance companies before, surely they were sending money to companies that already distributed birth control, paid for abortions, etc., etc. The only thing it seems to change is that it is now easier for diocese employees to get birth control? But they could have done that before and it was as much beyond the diocese’s control then as it is now.

 

[irishpatrick]

That’s not correct. The diocese can provide it’s own insurance, and build it’s own policy. By using the State’s insurance policies, they don’t have a say in what’s covered. They CAN have a say in what’s covered if they go back to using their own insurance. If you’re using the State’s insurance policies, you get the State’s policies and all that’s covered under the State’s policies.

From the first article:

If you can use your own insurance and build your own policy, you don’t have the right to complain about what the state mandates if you have the freedom to not use them, and rather use your own.

If it’s that important to the diocese, they should appeal to the Vatican for more resources so that they can offer their own insurance. Or have a fund raiser to help pay for the extra cost…not have the State policies insure them and then complain that they don’t like the policy.

It amazes me how so many people do not seem to grasp the full depth and meaning of 1st amedment religious protections. Amazing.

 

[Lutheranteach]

My guess is:

A) A number of people asked for this benefit
B) Every boiler plate policy the insurance company offers has a contraceptive benefit and it’s not going to take the time, spend the money, or make the effort to write a specific policy for the diocese.

 

[irishpatrick]

Wait to see the lawsuits the minute an employee is fired for using BC. THe aclu will come flying into the sitution on white horses with 100 lawyers.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Wait to see the lawsuits the minute an employee is fired for using BC. THe aclu will come flying into the sitution on white horses with 100 lawyers.

It might not be so bad if the information was volunteered, but if the diocese decided to thumb through insurance bills and look at medical records to find those that are using ABC, I can see that bringing about a lawsuit of monumental proportions.

 

[irishpatrick]

It might not be so bad if the information was volunteered, but if the diocese decided to thumb through insurance bills and look at medical records to find those that are using ABC, I can see that bringing about a lawsuit of monumental proportions.

I do not see the Diocese prying into personal lives. I do see teh Diocese firing someone who openly admits to using BC. I think lawsuits will than fly.

 

[sharmin]

I do not see the Diocese prying into personal lives. I do see teh Diocese firing someone who openly admits to using BC. I think lawsuits will than fly.

I think it would be a sad day for the Diocese to fire anyone for sin.

 

[manualman]

I think it would be a sad day for the Diocese to fire anyone for sin.

You mean like molesting children?

I think it has made for sad days when the Church HASN’T fired people for unrepentant sins and repeat offending sinners.

 

[Rence]

I think it would be a sad day for the Diocese to fire anyone for sin.

Sharmin, I think I understand you. But the Church does strive to set a standard for Catholics. How would it look if the the diocese let their employees take contraceptives? Sure if a person is on contraceptives and is commiting to stop, I’m sure the diocese won’t fire them. Because you’re right, it would be sad for any Christian entity to fire somoene for sinning. But the Church wants Catholics to commit to cessation of sin. And the article even says that, and I do believe them. The article says

Such a step would be taken only if the employee, after being counseled, refused to get in line with Catholic teaching, King said. “It wouldn’t be the first thing we do,” he said.

So if the person continues doing what they’re doing, the diocese has the right to fire them — especially if there is a morality contract in place. And IrishPatrick,if there is a morality contract in place, there’s not much any lawyer can do to protect an employee. If there’s no morality contract in place…well then I think the diocese will probably have to suck it up. Sorry. I just don’t see it happening without a morality clause. But most Catholic and Christian entities have morality clauses or conscience agreements. They’d be kind of silly not to have one in place.

However, there will be lawsuits (and the diocese will lose) if they violate patient rights by thumbing through medical records and insurance documents. They have no right to do that, and they know that. And it would really look bad for the Church if they did it. So yes, they will have to rely on employees coming forward with the information — which they won’t do if they need their job and refuse to not use contraception.

But please don’t say that the state is forcing the diocese to provide birth control because that’s not what’s happening. The TRUTH is, the diocese is using commercial insurance carriers (dictated to by the State) to insure their employees and the State mandated to all the commercial insurance companies to cover contraceptives in their prescription coverage. The diocese most certainly doesn’t HAVE TO provide that insurance. They can provide their own private insurance and self-insure their employees and dictate the policy themselves. They don’t want to do that because it’s expensive. If it really isn’t ‘worth the money’ they’d put their money where their mouth is and self-insure their employees. So the truth is, this isn’t something being “forced” on the diocese. The diocese is subjecting themselves to this by using commercial/private insurance companies.

 

[sharmin]

You mean like molesting children?

I think it has made for sad days when the Church HASN’T fired people for unrepentant sins and repeat offending sinners.

I think there is a world of difference between taking birth control and molesting little children. Legalities aside.

 

[manualman]

…But please don’t say that the state is forcing the diocese to provide birth control because that’s not what’s happening. The TRUTH is, the diocese is using commercial insurance carriers (dictated to by the State) to insure their employees and the State mandated to all the commercial insurance companies to cover contraceptives in their prescription coverage. The diocese most certainly doesn’t HAVE TO provide that insurance. They can provide their own private insurance and self-insure their employees and dictate the policy themselves. …

You make it sound so innocent, but it isn’t. It reminds me of an appaling legal case I recently read about.

A huge Agribusiness company developed some genetically modified corn on land they owned that was adjacent to a farm on which the farmer used heirloom corn and made his own seed (and had done so for generations). After a few years of this, the AgriCorp accused the farmer of stealing their patented corn genes and got a warrant to test some of his corn for patented genes. They found some and WON the case even though the defendent demonstrated in court via experts that the AgriCorp corn had cross pollinated his corn naturally (via wind and bees presumably). Didn’t matter, he was found in possession of their property and was forced to pay.

These jerks had CREATED an environment that made it impossible for him to farm his land as he desired and then they sued HIM when their corn genes migrated.

Insurance is a vast and horribly complicated business today. No way does the Madison diocese have the resources to self-insure any more than YOU do. Their risk pool is way too small, not to mention the overhead costs of setting that all up.

This is just another example of the state creating a system where everyone MUST participate (either legally or practically) and then coercing people indirectly via mandates on the new necessity. They’ve just inserted a layer of smokescreen to make it deniable.

Don’t believe it or they will do the same in myriad other areas of life! (Don’t like our moral educational content? Build your own schools (check). Don’t believe in abortion? Choose another field besides OB (coming soon). Don’t believe in the use of fetal tissue in vaccines? Make your own then (check). Don’t want involuntary organ donation when WE decide your life isn’t worth living anymore? Don’t come to the hospital then… Where does it end?

 

[Corki]

I do not for sure, yet I have a hard time understanding how it could not be.

I supposed it depends on whether or not the Church has options. Can they just drop all insurance for their employees and provide a fund for each employee to purchase their own insurance, it yes than they should be doing that…yet it seems to me just lying down and accepting this is the last thing the Church should be doing.

I think that would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

The problem with that is that individual insurance is much more expensive than group insurance and not all individuals can get individual coverage that meets their needs. For example, high risk pregnancy coverage is covered in virtually all employer sponsored plans but is very rarely available in an individual plan.

A better option would be to offer medical insurance that did not include prescription drug coverage. I beleive that is the course of action that a Catholic college recently took when they were told they must include contraception coverage. I’ll try to find the reference.

It is illegal for the insurance company to divulge individual medical information. However, most insurance companies also provide coverage analysis. They would be able to tell the company, for example, how many employees used contraceptive coverage, how many family members, etc. That could give the diocese information to use for a strong, targeted, Catholic values employee education plan.