Viewpoints: Religious Freedom And Insurance Coverage For Contraception

[rug]

Feb 06, 2012

USA Today: Contraception Mandate Violates Religious Freedom
In an election-year hothouse, the issue has quickly become caricatured as the Obama administration's "war on Catholics" versus the Republicans' "war on contraception." It is neither. The administration tried to strike a balance and simply failed. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom deserves more weight than the administration allowed (2/5).

USA Today: Kathleen Sebelius: Contraception Rule Respects Religion
The public health case for making sure insurance covers contraception is clear. But we also recognize that many religious organizations have deeply held beliefs opposing the use of birth control. That's why in the rule we put forward, we specifically carved out from the policy religious organizations that primarily employ people of their own faith. ... The religious exemption in the administration's rule is the same as the exemption in Oregon, New York and California (Kathleen Sebelius).

Los Angeles Times: An Affront Catholics Agree On
Liberal and conservative Catholics don't agree on much, but they're both outraged by a new rule on contraception coverage. ... The fragile liberal-conservative alliance opposing the rule on contraceptive coverage seems unlikely to hold for long, much less to extend to other issues on which Catholics at either end of the spectrum may find common ground. Yet it is refreshing to see that no matter how disaffected from their church's teachings some Catholics might feel, they believe that its organizations have a right to act in accordance with its principles (Charlotte Allen, 2/5).

CNN: Bishops Don't Speak For Most Catholics On Contraception
Recently, the chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Religious Liberty argued that the Obama administration's requirement that most health insurance plans cover contraception goes against "the mandate of Jesus Christ." But Jesus said nothing about contraception coverage, of course, or most any other issues related to sexuality. So, what is the issue? (Keith Soko, 2/4).

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2012/February/06/monday-opinions-on-contraception.aspx

The article links to each story.

[cbayer]

1. The views are all over the place.

Both David Brooks and Mark Shields called the administration's decision a cataclysmic failure, while other commentators (female mostly) felt it was absolutely the right thing to do.

At least it's on the table now and can be discussed more openly.

[rug]

2. Yeah, i think this will be a showdown later this year.

[skepticscott]

3. So how is this any different

than forcing people with a religious or moral objection to war or the death penalty to pay taxes that support those things? How is this any more an impingement on their freedom of religion than many things that are already done? And frankly, why are Catholics not up in arms about the other things I mentioned, if they are truly "pro-life", as opposed to simply anti-artificial prevention of egg fertilization?

[TruthBeToldIWill]

4. Totally Confused!

So this new law mandates that all businesses including Catholic Hospitals have to provide insurance that the rest of the country will also have to provide that covers all forms of contraceptives.

Does this also force the Catholic Hospitals accept the insurance to cover the distribution/performance of the contraceptives?

For example - Saint X Hospital has to provide Nurse Anne with insurance that covers contraceptives.
Nurse Anne then goes to the same hospital (or we can say another Catholic Hospital) because she wants to receive contraceptives per her individual right/Pro-Choice rights.

Is that right? I can't tell if this thing is two fold or just talking about providing insurance, not the service itself...

[cbayer]

14. The new regulation will require that those businesses or institutions that provide

health insurance for their employees, provide coverage for contraception and sterilization at no additional cost to the employee.

It does not mean that they have to provide those drugs or services, just the coverage for them.

The difficulty may arise when certain hospitals (or other institutions) require that patients utilize the pharmacy or other clinical services that this employer owns/supplies.

[darkstar3]

5. How can a liberal person, Catholic or not, be outraged at this decision?

"Liberal and conservative Catholics don't agree on much, but they're both outraged by a new rule on contraception coverage."

I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a liberal can possibly be anti-contraception.

[cbayer]

6. I think it's the church-state separation issue that they object to, but I am not sure.

It's an interesting dilemma.

[darkstar3]

8. Health care is regulated at both a state and federal level.

Those regulations are in place to protect the mental and physical health of the patient, and that's been their point since their inception. This is, in fact, the way all regulated service industries work. The person providing the service (banking for instance) must conform to the standards set down to protect the person seeking the services.

A conscience clause, or anything resembling it, flies in the face of that mentality. Rather than protecting the patient/seeker, they allow the doctor/servicer to force their own beliefs on others. So not only does it go against the very idea of service industry regulation, it also infringes upon the religious freedom of the patient.

No one can make you become a doctor, so if you can't do the job and you know it, then don't go for it. They don't have to make special exceptions for you just because you're physically able but mentally unwilling to perform the job as stated. That same rule applies for every other job.

(I bring up the idea of the conscience clause because it is not only related, but also because it is similar to what the Catholics wish they were getting from the administration now.)

[cbayer]

9. This is not necessarily true for medical students and physicians.

There are many (if not most) schools that permit students to opt out of certain things, like performing abortions.

As many physicians are self-employed, they are not required to do certain things either. If they are on call and the only one available to provide a certain necessary service, then they will be obligated to perform it. But they can easily arrange their practices so that this situation does not occur or arrange to have someone to cover for them in certain cases.

But that's not really the issue here. The issue is whether the state or federal government can require certain religiously owned or based hospitals to provide something they are opposed to. While I don't think they can (or would) be forced to provide abortions, the birth control issue is much more complex.

[darkstar3]

10. If a hospital cannot provide full-spectrum health care,

to all patients, then it has no business being in business.

[cbayer]

12. There are lots and lots of hospitals that don't.

This has been a very serious problem in the New Orleans area.

The "Charity" system was started by the Catholic church and provides no abortion or birth control services.

In addition, the two largest community hospitals, although not Catholic, do not provide these services either. This is because the community has a very large Catholic base and they have voted to not permit these hospitals to offer these services.

It can be a real nightmare, particularly if a patient presents in what could be an emergency and the hospitals want to transfer them elsewhere.

[darkstar3]

13. And that's a big problem.

[Heddi]

11. IMO, that hospital is free to do whatever it wants

as long as it doesn't receive state or federal funds for patient care and services.

But if you set yourself up as a 'community hospital,' and agree to take people from all walks of life, and agree to accept their Medicare, Medicaid, L&I, State Medical Coupons and the like, then i think you should have to conform to the requirements set forth by the state or federal government. That includes prescribing Plan B and HIV Prophylaxis to women & men (well, not the plan B part) who suffer sexual assault, etc. And I feel that that also goes for this issue, which is covering contraception on health insurance plans offered to employees.

If Catholic & other religious hospitals are going to cut off their nose to spite their faces by just removing all health insurance options for employees (whether they be Catholic (or other religion) or not, then I think these places, hospitals in particular, will see a sharp decline in staffing, and will find themselves to be even more understaffed than they most likely are. Their revenues will drop, and all the "good work for the public" that these hospitals (for example) do will be for naught because they will not have the necessary number of employees to do the job. All because they have an ethical/moral issue that someone, who may or may not be catholic, is using one of probably 1500 allowed procedures/medications/allocations of their health insurance that they, the Catholic Hospital, don't agree with.

Seems rather short-sighted to me

In a slightly related topic: one hospital I worked for was quasi-associated with the Catholic Church in a very very remote way. For about a billion years it was St Whatever's, but was bought out by a private, for profit, health care conglomerate in the early 2000's. There were still nuns and priests running around, and there was a daily devotional read over the loud speaker every morning at 8am, every day at noon, every evening at 5pm, and then again at 10pm before quiet time (talk about annoying! When are people supposed to get sleep!??!)

But it was supposed to be a secular hospital, without any religious affiliation (??).

However, they shut down the only OB-GYN wing in the county because they were tired of having patients NOT come to their hospital to deliver babies because they wouldn't do tubals after C-Sections. They lost a shit-ton of cash and clients, and the only other hospital in town was more than happy to oblige the community with a non-judgemental approach to OB-GYN services. The OB ward at the other hospital is thriving, meanwhile, the secular-but-prayers-4-times-a-day hospital loses money every month. It's for a variety of reasons (bad care, awful health grades, mediocre visits from JAHCO, surly staff, etc).


On edit--clarification of my 2nd paragraph re: staffing:

I'm an RN. 98% of my friends are RN's or other medical professionals. It's a nurse's market out there now, and unless you live in a town with 1 hospital, it's quite easy for experienced and not-so-experienced (but not new grad) RN's and RT's and MA's to get a job. There are shitloads of nursing shortages, and I've *never* worked at a hospital that was fully staffed to the matrix for Rn's or MA's or CNA's.

So if my hospital suddenly pulled this 'well, we're not providing you with health insurance anymore", and it's after the first of the year where it's not open enrollment at my husband's job, and I have to wait until Jan of next year to be covered, I know I and most of the people I work with would have our resumes sent out to every other medical facility that day. And what about people who have no spouse whose coverage they can use?

I think this is a very very poor battle for these Religious-Affiliated But Employ People Who Aren't Of That Religion groups to fight. They are going to lose workers because of it, and (again, in the case of hospitals or anything else that serves the public in such a way), they are going to be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. And for an issue that really isnt' an issue at all...no one is FORCING catholics to use BC or get tubals or vascectomies. They're just giving them the OPTION. And the Catholic Church should trust its members to do the right thing that they think is right by God (which would be to not use BC, get vasectomies,tubals, etc).

It's presenting people with a choice, not forcing pills down anyone's throat

AND and and people take BC for more than 1 reason...horrible periods, acne, PCOS,

[cbayer]

7. Here is a good piece on why this decision is the right one:

http://www.attackwatch.com/news-feed-entry/debunking-the-so-called-war-on-religion


Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter put together six things to know about this decision. Check them out, then help spread the truth.

1. Contraception is important for women's health

Scientists and medical experts agree that contraception is important for women's health. The fundamental belief behind this decision is that women should have access to this care, without having to worry about cost.

2. Churches are exempt from the new rules

Churches and other houses of worship will be exempt. Other religious organizations that employ women regardless of their faith, like hospitals and universities, can qualify for an additional year to transition to the new rules.

3. Individual religious beliefs will be protected

Just as no woman will be forced to buy or use contraception, these rules do not affect the "conscience clause," meaning no doctor will be forced to prescribe contraception.

4. More than 75% of Catholic women are actually behind this

There's widespread support for covering birth control at no cost: 71% of Americans, and 77% of Catholic women, support it. And 98% of American Catholic women who have had sex have reported using contraception.

5. This will reduce employer costs

The National Business Group on Health found that it could cost an employer 15-17 percent more not to provide contraception coverage.

6. The President stands with the faith-based community

These new rules are consistent with the President’s commitment to religious liberty. The President is proud of his administration’s partnerships and strong support of faith-based organizations.