Not content to just piss off Catholics and other people of faith who were paying attention, the Obama Administration decided to widen its War on Christianity by announcing today an expanded contraceptive mandate that now will require ALL universities to offer contraceptives to all students free of charge.
In a move that is likely to reignite the ire of religious leaders, late Friday afternoon the Obama administration announced a proposal that would require universities, including religious universities, to provide contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their students, as well as their employees, without a co-pay. This appears to significantly widen the originally-announced HHS mandate, which had only applied to employees.
The White House released the 32-page proposal late Friday afternoon. It outlines three different options to ensure that the health plans for employees and students of religious organizations cover birth control, including abortifacient drugs, and sterilizations, without co-pay.
How very islamic of this administration. Screw your beliefs, you will submit.
This doesn’t make a lot of sense, as the media machine had done his heavy lifting for him on this topic and succeeding in convincing the televisitariat that this is about something completely different than what it is, and now he decides to drag other Christians into it? This can’t end well…for him.
And of course you leave out the money quote from the article:
The public may comment on this proposal for the next 90 days.
You must be going through a very dry season on the job to be getting worked up over what is NOT even a regulation yet. I read the first 15 or so pages of what basically was a request for comment, and then skimmed the rest. There is no requirement to “offer” contraceptives. There is a requirement to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives. It’s the same damn silly confusion you and yours have had about ACA in general. It’s not the government providing health care … it’s the government making health care affordable. Kathleen Sibelius won’t be getting into scrubs and screaming “two IV’s of antibiotic STAT!!!”
So where is the offense BiW? Oh I see, the bishops were asked for their opinion on the day before Saint Patty’s Day and now they’ll actually have to stay sober over the weekend and read it.
You want Islamic … then we don’t need to issue a document that “serves as a request for comments in advance of proposed rulemaking …”. Instead we can just say do it and STFU.
The truth is, your comparison to Islamic nations is an insult to America. I think you need to spend a little time in Syria to regain some f*cking perspective.
You are aware that the HHS had a comment period on the mandate it already announced, and that it ignored what it was told then, leading to the flap already underway at that time, right? But thanks for the refresher on federal adminstrative law. Having to memorize the APA when I had the course in law school didn’t stick.
I know. Being a progressive, you can never be disabused of the notion that doing the same thing over again won’t lead to the same result, but the Adminstration has already shown that it doesn’t take any law or portion of the Constitution seriously that it doesn’t like. It doesn’t matter what they’re told in this comment period. They are going to do exactly what they want to do. And what they want to do is distract, punish, and break the institutions in society that understand that there are legitimate, lawful, and Constitutional objections to the things that this administration has set forth as its aims.
And once again, you fail to grasp the point of the objection. Whether requiring the religious instituions to provide these contraceptive measures, or requiring the insurance carriers they contract with to provide them, the government is making them participate in the activity that they object to, and making them pay for it, one way or another. The only difference is whether they do so directly or through a middleman.
So why don’t we have the Church fire all employees who use birth control? How bout expel all students who do the same? After all, if it’s about the moral issue and not about the money, how can the church abide having birth control users in their employment?
The sad thing is my comment is not as absurd as I wish it were. From what I understand there is indeed legislation being drafted in some states that would allow for birth control use to be grounds for firing from a “moral objector”.
It’s sort of scary watching you applaud at the top of the slippery slope.
Oh and to address a finer point … I do NOT support zero copay for contraceptives. If I have to pay full price for a condom there is no reason on Earth why a woman can’t be expected to cough up a $20.00 or $40.00 copay for the pill.
Thanks for the light and love. Good stuff.
Yet another trial balloon to see how much the regime can get away with.
The really sad part is that even if a completely Republican administration and Congress should be installed in 2013, not one iota of any power claimed by the Obama regime will be renounced or abjured by its successors. Freedom is no longer a de jure condition in these United States.
Francis why would you say that? Republicans share your concern of fed govt overreach. Do you think they are full of sh*t?
Perhaps one of the most disingenuous statements ever. Of course the Reich was going to advise it’s foot soldiers in the latest attempt to render the constitution moot.
As an opponent you have to read the thing to make sure what it says. Especially when you are dealing with men of bad faith like the pResident and his henchmen.
Come on Sister you can’t be that naive. Important stuff is released like this all the time so the agent provocateurs like Stephanopolous, Gregory, Matthews and Scheiffer can press the administrations deceitful framing of the whole issue and establish the narrative before the right wing death beasts get hold of it and form the corrective. I know your a nun but I’m sure you’ve been around the block a time or two.(Just as an aside- Has anyone ever seen a young nun besides Sister Betrille? Do they keep them in the convent ’til their 50 or something. I’m catholic and I don’t ever recall seeing a young nun).
Initiative in was is everything even in the war of ideas. Obama and his prized punk are the aggressors. They are the ones looking to deny the rights of citizens in order to satisfy the desires of a constituency. It is they who lie as to the nature of the controversy. The controversy is they are trying to supplant traditional religion with their paradigm of state as religion i.e secular sharia.
This is small potatoes because as I read this article if you have health insurance you are going to be required to fund abortion whether you like it or not 1st amendment be damned.
But this isn’t government healthcare. If you can control what is covered, what can or cannot be disclosed and the cost of the services provided it damn well is de facto government run healthcare. It is just being done along the fascist line of things so they can demagogue the “CEO” if something goes wrong. And believe me that script has already been written.
Just one more thing:
Both she and Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, declined to offer any further statement to media Friday afternoon, saying they needed more time to study the proposal.
Sr. Keehan’s silence stands in sharp contrast to her prior knowledge and endorsement of the president’s February 10 “accommodation.”
I wonder how that 30 pieces of silver feel in her purse now. It doesn’t spend very far where she’s going.
@Rutherford…I know the subject matter of this post hits all your bells as noted in your flying off the handle.
You should have read the entire release.
Public comment on this isn’t necessarily for the public to comment but more so that the public can see them. No doubt people will flame the board and interested parties will submit things but ultimately this is all about making something work,not to alter it.
There are real staples in this release that make BiW right. Not the least of which is that if religious self insured entities successfully jump through all the hoops that go against their beliefs then ultimately the TPA (third party admin.) will have to pay. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL THE SERVICES NOT BE PAID FOR.
Rutherford this incredible power crunch we’re seeing is something that should scare you since a precedent set is one that often will soon be used against you.
So what? So long as it’s not the Church’s money, who cares? I thought it was the Church’s goal to not pay for practices that go against their beliefs. That is different from taking an active role to STOP the practice. For that, they’ve got lobbyists. In the meantime, yes, the services which are legal in the United States of America will be subsidized.
Again, so long as it’s not the Church’s money doing the subsidizing, they should have no gripe.
P.S. Federal funds per the Hyde Amendment cannot go towards certain types of abortion. That doesn’t make abortion illegal. It just means it has to be paid for some other way.
@ Rutherford…No your comment really is absurd. The Church is meant to provide guidance so as followers can make the best choice with their free will.
Although the current plan from the Obama Admin. wants folks to believe they believe contraception and abortion coverage can be covered via insurance carriers shuffling their own profits,rebates and “free” care from concerned providers without tapping the revenue coming from the insured doesn’t make it true.Reality is a real bitch that way. Insurance companies don’t have money of their own just like banks,utilities and government.
What you’re saying is the money is fungible so it could just as easily be the church’s money as anyone else’s. So the answer is to find some way to truly isolate the funding for contraception so the church has no qualms whatsoever,
However, you fail on the following point:
Nonsense. In this case the Church is using economic coercion to force a choice on the part of its followers (and even worse, its non-followers). Free will has NOTHING to do with it.
So why don’t we have the Church fire all employees who use birth control? How bout expel all students who do the same? After all, if it’s about the moral issue and not about the money, how can the church abide having birth control users in their employment?
I’m starting to understand why it is you are so hostile to Christianity. You really don’t understand it. It isn’t about “forcing” anyone to do anything…which is a fundamental difference between it and islam. While religion offers authority and guidance for an individual’s personal conduct, measured against an objective moral standard, its sovereignty exists only to the degree that the indivual admits it. Just as chirches have a conscience right, so do the individuals who subscribe to their teachings. Aside from the fact that your scenario being ironic, I can’t support it because free will is a component of the faith. While there is a distinction to be drawn between to someone hired to teach ecclesiastical doctrine, and to be “the face of the faith”, and someone hired to perform a task that requires no such training or teaching as part of what they do. One doesn’t have to be a nun to be a school secretary, or a deconess to help coordinate shipments of food and medicine to Haiti. And if these employees want to use birth control, they should be free to do so, but that doesn’t mean that their religiously based employer should be forced to participate.
The sad thing is my comment is not as absurd as I wish it were. From what I understand there is indeed legislation being drafted in some states that would allow for birth control use to be grounds for firing from a “moral objector”.
I would actually oppose such legislation on the same grounds that I object to the HHS mandate. Conscience. You really would do your understanding a world of good if you read up on the topic, Rutherford.
See my answer to Alfie. When Church doctrine effects the pocket book of its employees, they are indeed trying to influence behavior. Their conscience is impacting the finances of those who might not share their conscience. That’s a problem.
This is the wrong focus, and you know it.
The churches aren’t harming these employee’s pocket books any more than the employees themselves did when they chose to work for an employer that did not provide this “benefit” due to serious moral objections.
And even if I ignored the fact that the employees made that choice, you’re going to seriously suggest that the condoms or birth control pills that shouldn’t cost Sandra Fluke anywhere near the $1000.00 a year she was claiming impose an immeasurable burden on the employee? Hell, if they chose to smoke or drink, two behaviors with far more expensive costs for long term use, their end of the bill would be far more per use than the $9 a month for the pill at Wally World or Tarjay, or the $1 per condom.
BiW, your $9.00 pill is a fundamental weakness in your argument, Birth control is not one size fits all. Various formulations have different side effects. Not every woman can buy generic. The proper type of pill is the business of her and her doctor, not the church or the insurance company for that matter.
Oh by the way, I am somewhat relieved that you would oppose legislation that would result in birth control users being fired by employers “of conscience.” There may be a glimmer of hope for you yet.
Again, if you really had a “glimmer” of a clue what you’re bitching about, you’d find nothing at all unusual at the proposition.
I’m not gonna ask you to get deep into your heart or research theology and civics R,I am gonna beg ya to really ruminate on this though:
I think the root of our disagreement rests there.
I absolutely agree. I suspect that BiW and you focus on how wrong it is for a church to finance behavior it finds objectionable. I am more focused on the impact doctrine has on the target, especially in cases where the target does not share the doctrine of the church.
For some reason there is a failure to see a difference between what goes on in a church and what goes on in a business endeavor. This continues to stump me. Anyone attending a church, should expect to abide by its edicts or go to some other church. But employment in a business is a different kettle of fish. Again, I don’t know why that distinction eludes so many in this argument.
Well the reverse is true from where I sit. I don’t get how you go to a jewish hospital and be shocked that the dietary dept is kosher. I don’t get how you go to St X hospital for an abortion or sex change and are offended that they refer you elsewhere.
The other ironic angle here,and I don’t think this a stretch. The same people pissing and bitching about the religious entities are the same folks that think a cigar bar should prohibit smoking because an employee may be exposed to second hand smoke.
I don’t think your examples apply. The insurance limitations requested by the Church impact behavior outside of the church run hospital or university. Serving kosher in a Jewish hospital is an internal thing. For that matter, a church run hospital giving a specific (and reasonable) referral to a patient requesting an abortion is perfectly fine with me. Both of those cases involve what a hospital will and will not do in its own internal procedures. Again, the insurance thing impacts behavior that is none of the employer’s business and occurs outside of the workplace.
Well your latest at my place may indeed solve the issue. Here and now though I still think we’re right and your wrong.
In your well presented case in this comment you open up another can of worms that undermines your position.
Again, the insurance thing impacts behavior that is none of the employer’s business and occurs outside of the workplace.
not true given the realities of reporting etc that supports many plans subrogation rules. You might call that stretch but I think it captures the scope of the issues many facets.
I am more focused on the impact doctrine has on the target, especially in cases where the target does not share the doctrine of the church.
Wrong focus and analysis. Despite the myths that your would-be god king and his retainers have told you, employer-provided health care is:
-not a RIGHT, it is a benefit that employers offer as incentive for employees; and
-employees are not “targets”, they are people who chose to work for what the employer chooses to offer, which is as it should be. To say otherwise is to turn the whole equation upside down. No employee, entrepreneur, venture capitalist, or business entity does what it does to cater to the whims and desires of every employee.
That’s a valid comment and the very reason why I believe health insurance should be totally divorced from employment.
BiW, your $9.00 pill is a fundamental weakness in your argument, Birth control is not one size fits all. Various formulations have different side effects. Not every woman can buy generic. The proper type of pill is the business of her and her doctor, not the church or the insurance company for that matter.
There is nothing “weaK” about it. As I have already described more than once, oral contraceptives are formulated, tested, marketed, and sold as just that…oral conteaceptives. They may be marketed as having a beneficial secondary effect for a handful of conditions, but theythat process does NOT work the other way, and until they are sold as hormonal medication for this condition or that condition with a contraceptive side effect, you don’t win this argument. As for the rest of the statement I didn’t include above, I don’t think you thought that through very well.
You still don’t get it. Whether prescribed for hormonal therapy or for simple contraception, every pill is not right for every woman. Even for simple birth control I submit the doctor and patient have to find a drug that does not have overly undesirable side effects. The $9.00 pill is not the answer for everybody.
Rutherford, by your admittedly erroneous logic, prescription plans should never require the filling of a script with a generic whenever possible, because that should always be a choice of the patient and the Dr.
One oral contraceptive doesn’t cost more than another because it is that much more difficult to make; it costs more because the formulation is changed just enough to allow the maker to keep a patent, and thus be the only company producing it with THAT formulation.
That’s a valid comment and the very reason why I believe health insurance should be totally divorced from employment.
Now if we can just get you to think a little harder about what insurance is and is not, you might just have an ephipany or two on this subject.