Republican Hearing on Contraception: No Women Allowed

[sandorski]

QFT. One's employer should have no bearing on healthcare decisions, even if that bearing is purely financial. The Church, or any employer, should not be between a woman and her doctor.

No no no. The Government should not be in the way of an Employer whose between its' Employees and their Doctor.

 

[pcgeek11]

Nice dodge, particularly considering that honor killing is a tribal practice that predates Islam, and that there is no foundation for such in Sharia Law-

http://arabnews.com/variety/islam/article456048.ece

Feel free to try again, even to address the question in a straightforward way...

I'll concede the Honor Killing... How is this:

I think there is a huge difference between birth control /abortion and Stoning and Amputations.

Better?

I will point out again that they turn a blind eye to Honor Killings also.

 

[pcgeek11]

Some say this is 'bad politics losing womens' vote for Republicans'

They don't understand Republicans plan to undo womens' right to vote.

That is stupid.

 

[pcgeek11]

Does your insurance cover any over the counter drugs? Why should it cover a condom, which is over the counter, if it doesn't over Advil? I think the law does cover male sterilization.

Yes. My insurance covers some OTC drugs.

 

[lopri]

Many insurances cover Viagra and procedure for vasectomy. (The latter might be covered by the ACA) You will probably never hear about those, however.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Many insurances cover Viagra and procedure for vasectomy. (The latter might be covered by the ACA) You will probably never hear about those, however.

These same insurances also tend to cover drugs for FASD as well as tubal ligation, so whats the issue there?

 

[thecoolnessrune]

Does your insurance cover any over the counter drugs? Why should it cover a condom, which is over the counter, if it doesn't over Advil? I think the law does cover male sterilization.

As pcgeek mentioned, my insurance does indeed cover some OTC drugs (not condoms though).

Why would my only option be sterilization if she has the option to have her birth control paid for?

If equality matters as much as the ACLU is harping, then it would be inconsequential to require males buying condoms as well, considering by other's own admission that it would cost far less than subsidizing BC.

Unless this isn't about equality of course..

 

[Riparian]

So she (and apparently others) thinks 'other people' should subsidize her costs? Why?

Do you think we should subsidize the costs for other medications such as medications for erectile dysfunction or hypertension? If so, why? Obviously people are going to have differing opinions about what should be subsidized and in these women's opinion, birth control is closer to a necessity than an optional use drug. They're entitled to their opinion and you to yours but they should at least be offered the chance to explain the reasoning for their opinions. This is especially true when 94% of Georgetown's student body opposed the school's policy decision.

If true that's a problem. If the pills are for a legitimate health need she should get them. But this is anecdotal and the correct response is to get her specific situation straightened out, not willy-nilly dole out pills to make sure this doesn't happen again. Such an isolated instance is a very poor basis for sweeping changes.

Yes, she was going to use an anecdote as an example but in her testimony she cites a few statistics to help support her case. She states that 65% of the students were interrogated by insurance representatives or the school's medical staff about why they need the prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms. Additionally, she also says that 20% of women in situations similar to her anecdote are denied coverage similar to the woman in her anecdote. These are her numbers and I don't know where she got them, so take them as you will

For the most part, I posted up the testimony because I felt that she was indeed qualified to testify during the hearing on HHS's rulemaking. I don't entirely agree with what she has to say but I think she makes valid points, has personal experience with the issue, and has valuable examples of situations where sweeping policies have gaps that need to be addressed. Whether these gaps are addressed with another sweeping policy or one that's more narrowly tailored is something to be considered and petitioned for to the HHS if necessary. But how do you result in a fair policy when only one side of the argument is being portrayed. Trying to narrowly frame this issue as only a religious freedom issue is disingenuous as it entirely involves women's health within it.

Lastly, the biggest problem with the school's policy (since we don't know what other religiously affiliated organizations' policies are, I will address only Georgetown's policy) is that it adorns too much decision-making power of approval or disapproval to those not involved with the actual diagnosis of need for birth control. When a woman's doctor says she needs the pills for health related reasons, then there should not be more rounds of interrogation and second-guessing. All of this could be addressed in a narrower rule than the one proposed by HHS.

No.

She (and others) have claimed it could be as high as $100 per month. We don't have 30 months in any year we use around here.

$3,000 was what she claimed she could earn over the Summer and over the course of law school (several years).

Fern

My fault. I misread her statement on that point. Here are her exact quotes on the cost of birth control:

Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that's practically an entire summer's salary. Forty percent of female students at Georgetown Law report struggling financially as a result of this policy

After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn't afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it.

My biggest issue with Georgetown's policy is that they cover contraceptives for the faculty and staff but not for the students. Makes it difficult for it to be a purely religious issue if you're allowing coverage for one segment of your population but not another.

 

[zinfamous]

I want my free condoms. And none of the cheap shit either. I want lambskin condoms. Men's rights!

Haven't used a condom in at Least two decades.

You're married

Believe me, spidey, most of the members here want you to have the most effective contraception available regardless of who has to pay.

😀

 

[zinfamous]

That is stupid.

I agree, that is stupid. ...though it would be in Republicans' best interest to undue women's right to vote.

 

[HomerJS]

Does anyone really believe that republicans or any officials will ban contraceptives? The idea is absurd. As it stands now, the status quo is that women can choose to follow their conscience, or follow what they believe to be right in this case. This is what America and Freedom is all about.

The varoius personhood amandments springing up in states would effectively ban the pill. All the GOP candidates have stated they favor. Santorum said he wouldn't mind if states banned the pill.

 

[HomerJS]

I think mainstream GOP leadership knows this is a loser. This was one of the top 2 stories this week and Fox News Sunday didn't even discuss. Evangelicals/conservatives are sinking the GOP ship.

 

[Zstream]

Assume all parties are willful participants, are you ok with it then?

For which case? You are employed by the institution right?

Are you trying to tell me I want my employer to pay for 100% of my dental because they should have to?

If you are more specific, I'll be glad to answer.

 

[Rainsford]

This is going to court IMO.

It's a 1st amendment issue: Can you practice your religion freely or can the govt force you not to?

IMO, the whole matter of contraceptives becomes involved when trying to determine IF the violation or restriction of the 1st amendment is a reasonable one or not. Religions have been exempted from laws before. I.e., the Amish do not have to participate in the Social Security program and some religions get exemption from laws mandating children's inoculations.

We have reasonable restrictions on Free Speech. No yelling "fire" in a crowed theater (unless, of course, there is actually a fire). Will this contraceptive rule be seen as a reasonable restriction/exception by the courts?

Fern

I think the underlying question will be whether "practicing your religion" reasonably includes "choosing health care products covered by employees' insurance". I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the relevant precedents involve religious exemptions based on requiring someone to DIRECTLY do something against their beliefs. The analogous situation here would seem to be if the government was forcing Catholics to personally use birth control. The current issue of employer provided insurance seems to be a far broader interpretation of the 1st amendment.

I also think there is a strong argument to be made for the fact that we're talking about a benefit provided to an employee as part of their compensation package. The objection to the rule is that it's forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control. But they're only "paying for it" as an optional part of something provided to the employee in exchange for work. The employee is ultimately "paying for it" through their employment.

Ultimately I have a hard time believing the courts will side with the Catholic Church on this one. We're talking about a policy that OPTIONALLY allows employees of Church affiliated organizations (including many non-Catholics) to get birth control as part of a health care plan they get as part of their benefits package in exchange for labor. I can't really see a good argument for why limiting that choice is a reasonable definition of free exercise of religion on the part of an employer.

 

[Rainsford]

So she (and apparently others) thinks 'other people' should subsidize her costs? Why?
...
Fern

Isn't that basically how health insurance works? Many people pay more into the system than they get out in order to cover the chance of needing very expensive coverage down the line. Birth control is a more stable cost than catastrophic health incidents, but many "normal" costs like that are covered by insurance. IMO, the better question is why birth control should be singled out to NOT be covered.

On a more practical note, I think birth control is definitely one of those things we as a society have an interest in ensuring is as widely used as possible. It reduces the number of abortions and unwanted babies, both of which are good for society as a whole.

 

[Jaskalas]

So what are your views on female contraception?

They can pay for it themselves.

If government feels compelled to spend our money then they can subsidize the creation of it and make the pills dirt cheap.

 

[Rainsford]

They can pay for it themselves.

Why should they? Health insurance covers many normal, out of pocket health care costs for both men and women. I don't get why birth control is felt to be a reasonable exception to that idea...

 

[Riparian]

I think the underlying question will be whether "practicing your religion" reasonably includes "choosing health care products covered by employees' insurance". I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the relevant precedents involve religious exemptions based on requiring someone to DIRECTLY do something against their beliefs. The analogous situation here would seem to be if the government was forcing Catholics to personally use birth control. The current issue of employer provided insurance seems to be a far broader interpretation of the 1st amendment.

I also think there is a strong argument to be made for the fact that we're talking about a benefit provided to an employee as part of their compensation package. The objection to the rule is that it's forcing the Catholic Church to pay for birth control. But they're only "paying for it" as an optional part of something provided to the employee in exchange for work. The employee is ultimately "paying for it" through their employment.

Ultimately I have a hard time believing the courts will side with the Catholic Church on this one. We're talking about a policy that OPTIONALLY allows employees of Church affiliated organizations (including many non-Catholics) to get birth control as part of a health care plan they get as part of their benefits package in exchange for labor. I can't really see a good argument for why limiting that choice is a reasonable definition of free exercise of religion on the part of an employer.

Here's an interesting read by a law professor regarding his thoughts on the HHS rule and its likely legal consequences:

http://volokh.com/2012/02/16/wheres-the-contraception-compromise/

He brings up two important points, one of which addresses your statement. Here's a quote:

The policy announced by HHS was not only controversial, but potentially illegal as well. Whether or not the contraception mandate violates the First Amendment’s “free exercise” clause (and I doubt it did, at least under current doctrine), it is almost certainly violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a law enacted in 1993 to provide additional protection for religious institutions under federal law (for reasons explained by Ed Whelan in these posts).

He doesn't specifically list cases of why the policy wouldn't violate the free exercise clause but he seems to be on the same page as you. The more interesting question is the RFRA that he brings up which requires a strict scrutiny standard for any policy that brings a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Haven't had much time to read into the RFRA but it definitely seems to be a problem for HHS's policy.

 

[Fern]

I don't think so- at least I doubt that it will go far if it does. The Church has no standing in the matter, given that the insurance provider is called upon to provide contraception services for "free" to employees of church run organizations. The Church isn't paying for anything, therefore they have no standing.

Insurance providers won't be providing "free" anything. The church run organization will be paying for it in the premiums.

I don't know what size employers this requirement applies to (in many cases employers with fewer than 'x' employees are exempted from these laws). But if a business privately owned by a Catholic is covered (s)he could file suit. I.e., you don't necessarily need the church itself to file, individuals could as well.

Fern

 

[Sonikku]

I can't believe what I'm watching. A party committing political suicide. Maybe someone can explain the strategy behing the GOP alienating women.

How would it be political suicide? It is par for the course in the party. Women vote Repub like African Americans do; in very small numbers.

 

[fskimospy]

Insurance providers won't be providing "free" anything. The church run organization will be paying for it in the premiums.

I don't know what size employers this requirement applies to (in many cases employers with fewer than 'x' employees are exempted from these laws). But if a business privately owned by a Catholic is covered (s)he could file suit. I.e., you don't necessarily need the church itself to file, individuals could as well.

Fern

They would have to provide evidence that they were paying higher premiums than they would be otherwise in order to have standing, that will be a big hurdle to overcome.

 

[Fern]

Isn't that basically how health insurance works? Many people pay more into the system than they get out in order to cover the chance of needing very expensive coverage down the line. Birth control is a more stable cost than catastrophic health incidents, but many "normal" costs like that are covered by insurance. IMO, the better question is why birth control should be singled out to NOT be covered.

On a more practical note, I think birth control is definitely one of those things we as a society have an interest in ensuring is as widely used as possible. It reduces the number of abortions and unwanted babies, both of which are good for society as a whole.

If you develop some condition which requires BC, I understand that. I do not understand why some personal choice not mandated by a medical condition requires insurance coverage.

I am not a Catholic, nor do I personally agree with their position. As they oppose abortion it seems to me the logical position is to therefore support BC. However, because something merely has social benefits is no reason for it to be brought under the umbrella of 'insurance'. Vitamins and exercise equipment have undeniable (health) benefits yet we do not cover them under insurance.

We are bastardizing the concept of insurance to convert it into a social welfare program-type provider.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Why should they? Health insurance covers many normal, out of pocket health care costs for both men and women. I don't get why birth control is felt to be a reasonable exception to that idea...

Re-read what you wrote. You're of the mindset that BC is a "health care costs". But it's to prevent pregnancy and pregnancy is not a disease. I don't see the link to healthcare.

Fern

 

[Jhhnn]

Re-read what you wrote. You're of the mindset that BC is a "health care costs". But it's to prevent pregnancy and pregnancy is not a disease. I don't see the link to healthcare.

Fern

You're trying to do a pirouette on the head of a rhetorical pin. For health insurance providers, contraception is a much cheaper & more predictable expenditure than pregnancy, child birth & carrying that child on the parents' policy for 25 years. From their perspective, the cost benefits of providing contraception are huge, even if they merely delay pregnancy rather than preventing it.

 

[Zorba]

Catholics also don't believe in sex out of wedlock, so do you all think it would be okay for catholic organizations to disallow maternity leave for unmarried moms, or worse yet fire them?