- Feb 5, 2006
This is going to backfire on GOP. They are going to lose women's votes. I guess they didn't get the message after the Komen mess.
Just the opposite. They are saying that, just because you are a religious organization, you are not allowed special exemptions to a law that every other employers is bound to.By setting guidelines for religious organizations, isn't the government promoting a centralized religion? Or rather a form of centralized religion?
Because the federal government has no business mandating this on a national level.
Please tell me why a personal choice should be subsidized. Maybe government should mandate that employers pay for employees cigarettes.
Bull. There are many reasons besides contraception that women take birth control. Sometimes, there are even medical reasons why a woman should avoid pregnancy. My wife is epileptic, and her medications would do some very nasty things to her and a fetus during an unplanned pregnancy. If I worked for one of those institutions, I'd damn sure want it covered - and I'm catholic! As far as your last statement there, it most certainly does limit access to birth control. You cannot blind yourself to that economic reality. For many people, if their employer provided health insurance doesn't cover it, they often go without despite the risks. You want to remove this from the equation, make birth control available over the counter...This issue really has nothing to do with "woman's health", freedom of religion, or access to birth control rather the rights of any business to decide what benefits they will provide to an employee.
Don't know where the "progressives" got this idea that things, especially those involving choice (like sex) should be subsidized by everyone else.
So an employer provides a health plan that doesn't cover birth control, does that limit access to birth control? Nope.
I disagree with zinfamous' statement as much as you do, but lets not bring unions into this. It isn't relevant, and neither is tax-exempt status.
It is hard as hell to get most employers to give you any information about health benefits before starting. When they do provide information it comes in the form of a single page summary. The fact that BC is not covered is usually buried much deeper than the little summary table.Did the employees know they would not receive contraceptives via their health care policy when they asked for a job?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/10/white-house-to-announce-accommodation-on-contraceptive-policy/#ixzz1lzmA16jbThe White House is expected to announce as early as Friday a plan to accommodate religious organizations and others that are opposed to a new policy requiring contraceptive coverage for employees.
A senior adviser to President Obama confirmed to Fox News that there will be an "accommodation" -- but advisers said the announcement does not represent a "compromise."
The move comes as several prominent Democratic lawmakers have urged the Obama administration to reconsider its position, which some consider an infringement of religious freedom. Vice President Biden said in an interview a day earlier that he was "determined" to work out the dispute.
Biden is among a string of Catholic administration officials who reportedly voiced concerns with the policy as it was being hashed out.
Why didn't they make the law so that all insurance had to cover BC as opposed to the employer having to buy the option? If it was required that all insurance cover BC, this would really be a moot point.
Hmmm...good point. It has been awhile since I changed jobs and forgot about that.It is hard as hell to get most employers to give you any information about health benefits before starting. When they do provide information it comes in the form of a single page summary. The fact that BC is not covered is usually buried much deeper than the little summary table.
I'm all for that.<snip> You want to remove this from the equation, make birth control available over the counter...
A lot of women have issues of one form or another with birth control, it usually takes several different ones to find the one that works well. I'm not sure if having people try to figure that out for themselves is a good idea.I'm all for that.
The religious wing nuts have screwed us all in this country regarding this point.
Get rid of all abstinence only education. It doesn't work and only makes the problems associated with having sex much worse.
All birth control pills, morning after pills, mifeprestone and misoprostol all to be over the counter medications. Make it a mandatory class that everyone in both middle school and high school goes through as part of their education on how to USE those pills correctly. Allow generics of all those pills on the market because they are now over the counter.
Then one can remove the need to have insurance cover the costs of birth control and abortion. Why? Because it won't cost fucking ridiculously too much, and be a pain in the ass to get as it currently is.
Not necessarily. Many states already have this as a required part of employee benefits.Did the employees know they would not receive contraceptives via their health care policy when they asked for a job?
A set of three Vivid condoms is less than $3.Then one can remove the need to have insurance cover the costs of birth control and abortion. Why? Because it won't cost fucking ridiculously too much, and be a pain in the ass to get as it currently is.
Nothing. My point in that post was only that many people that work for Catholic institutions may not be aware of any exclusions in their policy for bc despite the institution being catholic. It is not a reasonable assumption to state that just because someone works for a catholic institution that they are aware such an exclusion exists in their policy. It had nothing to do with any opinion on the scope of the policy.And what does that have to do with overreaching federal mandates?
It's a regulation of insurance, not church. Just like if regulations required health insurance to cover blood transfusions that Jehova's witnesses object to, it would not be an infringement on anyone's religious rights, just a reasonable regulation to cover actual health care.LOL - Obama is an idiot.
So the charity/church won't have to pay for birth control rather the insurance company.
Where exactly does Obama think that the insurance company gets the money to pay for the birth control.
What a joke.