Obama introduces new birth control accommodation so hopefully religious nonprofits will stop suing t

[unhappycamper]

http://www.salon.com/2014/08/22/obama_introduces_new_birth_control_accommodation_so_hopefully_religious_nonprofits_will_stop_suing_the_government/



The administration announced a "fix" for religious nonprofits and birth control, but will it change anything?

Obama introduces new birth control accommodation so hopefully religious nonprofits will stop suing the government
Katie McDonough
Friday, Aug 22, 2014 03:27 PM EST

The Obama administration on Friday announced its new accommodation for religious nonprofits that want to opt-out of providing comprehensive contraceptive coverage to employees. For those who haven’t been following along, what the administration introduced is an accommodation to an already existing accommodation that was deemed insufficiently accommodating by religious nonprofits.

The previous accommodation required religious nonprofits to fill out a form that would have triggered a third-party insurer to pay for and provide the coverage. The new policy allows these nonprofits to directly notify the Department of Health and Human Services of their objections to the coverage, and HHS will then arrange for it. So instead of signing a form, these organizations are now writing a letter. And instead of working with third-party insurers, these groups are just notifying the government.

While it’s encouraging to see the administration working to find ways to appease religious objections and ensure all employees can access basic healthcare, the new accommodation may not resolve the issue or prevent future lawsuits. After all, the final outcome of the new policy is still, at least in theory, exactly the same: People accessing birth control.

The organizations that sued over the previous accommodation, like Wheaton College and the Little Sisters of the Poor, made clear that the issue was what they viewed as complicity in providing birth control. So it’s hard to see how the new accommodation will placate them if the net effect remains the same. Now I’m not the betting type, but I’d wager that these organizations will press on with their lawsuits. Though I am not a legal scholar, of course.

[Squinch]

1. How about we go to a "medicare" model for birth control and abortion, and use it as the

wedge to introduce single payer?

[mercuryblues]

3. +1

[theHandpuppet]

2. I'm afraid no matter what compromises the President offers...

It will never be enough. These RW religious whack jobs will never stop until all reproductive choice is outlawed. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has already issued a statement critical of even this accommodation.

http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-145.cfm
Archbishop Kurtz Provides Initial Response to Revised HHS Mandate Regulations
August 22, 2014
Disappointed that regulation will not expand exemption, only modifies ‘accommodation’
Extending ‘accommodation’ to exempted businesses reduces religious freedom
More thorough study and detailed comments to come

WASHINGTON–Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it is issuing an additional set of interim final rules to implement its requirement that health plans, including employer-sponsored plans, provide for sterilization, contraception, and drugs that can cause an abortion. In response, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), provided the following statement:

“The Administration is once again revising its regulations on the HHS mandate. We will study the regulations carefully and will provide more detailed comments at a later date. In keeping with our practice, we will evaluate the regulations according to the principles set forth in ‘United for Religious Freedom,’ a March 2012 statement of the USCCB Administrative Committee that was later affirmed unanimously by the body of bishops at the General Assembly of June 2012.

“On initial review of the government’s summary of the regulations, we note with disappointment that the regulations would not broaden the “religious employer” exemption to encompass all employers with sincerely held religious objections to the mandate. Instead, the regulations would only modify the “accommodation,” under which the mandate still applies and still requires provision of the objectionable coverage. Also, by proposing to extend the “accommodation” to the closely held for-profit employers that were wholly exempted by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hobby Lobby, the proposed regulations would effectively reduce, rather than expand, the scope of religious freedom.”

[gtar100]

4. This issue brings to light just how stupid it is to have businesses linked in any way, shape, or

form to our health care.

[theHandpuppet]

5. I would totally agree with that!

What a mess we've created.

[Demeter]

7. +several brazillion

Universal Single Payer NOW!

[TlalocW]

6. The problem is

That he's expecting these businesses whose owners have already proven themselves to be unwilling to compromise in any way to fill out a form or notify the government that they won't provide birth control (or certain kinds). While they might willingly have done that after the Hobby Lobby case, they won't want to now because it will provide an avenue for the medicine they object to, and they either just won't fill anything out or will go to court over it.

There's probably no easy way out of this mess, but at least one thing they could have done to help a little is also provide a way for employees to notify the government that their companies have religious beliefs preventing them from getting the medicine they want so they could set up something for them without their employers knowing.

TlalocW

[Jake Stern]

8. An extortionist is never satisfied

Once you give in you're marked as a pushover and they will demand more and more.

True to form, the religious extortionists are already demanding more.