Tweet
Senior Administration officials outlined the imminent compromise to be announced by President Obama, which follows the “Hawaii compromise” by mandating that insurance companies reach out directly to employees at religiously affiliated institutions and offer them contraceptive care. The officials described a process that “accommodates religious liberty while protecting the health of women.”
Under the new policy, the religious exemption remains largely the same for churches and religious non-profits. For religiously affiliated institutions, like Catholic hospitals and universities, “All women will still have access to free contraceptive care no matter where we work. That’s the core principle,” said the senior official. The insurance company will be required to “reach out directly and offer her contraceptive care free of charge. The religious institutions will not have to offer anything, and they will not pay for it.”
The White House did not necessarily check the policy with all stakeholders. The senior official said that “You’ll talk to people throughout the day and see what their response is.” The US Conference of Catholic Bishops seemed to escalate yesterday, and call for the end to any birth control mandate in insurance, even though this has been the law of the land for any company offering prescription drug plans for over 11 years. Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards, according to the senior officials, lauded the announcement of the compromise (UPDATE: Planned Parenthood’s statement says that “the compliance mechanism does not compromise a woman’s ability to access… critical birth control benefits”), as well as selected Catholic leaders. But the bishops were not cited.
Senior officials cited statistics that 99% of all women rely on contraception at some point in their lives, and that half of women between 18-24 have trouble affording it. “Women deserve to have this preventive health care available and affordable,” added the senior official. “This allows those employees to have the same access as any other workers. But the institutions do not have to pay for it.” They characterized it as a “common sense solution.”
But it remains to be seen whether the compromise will take on this highly charged issue, and whether either side will find this acceptable.
…Sister Carol Keehan, the president of the Catholic Hospital Association, announced that she is “Very pleased” with the arrangement.
UPDATE: Here’s the info from the White House fact sheet:
The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and addresses important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception. Background on this policy is included below:
Section 2713 of the Affordable Care Act, the Administration adopted new guidelines that will require most private health plans to cover preventive services for women without charging a co-pay starting on August 1, 2012. These preventive services include well women visits, domestic violence screening, and contraception, and all were recommended to the Secretary of Health and Human Services by the independent Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Science.
Today, the Obama Administration will publish final rules in the Federal Register that:
o Exempts churches, other houses of worship, and similar organizations from covering contraception on the basis of their religious objections.
o Establishes a one year transition period for religious organizations while this policy is being implemented.
The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the non-exempted religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:
o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.
o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.
o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.
o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.
9 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
IF (that’s a BIG if) this rule can be ENFORCED against Insurance carriers, then I have no problem with the compromise. It actually sounds excellent on paper. But what I don’t know is if the Insurance provider really WILL contact the employees, make the effort, and if the employees will have any remedies if that doesn’t happen.
How does it usually work? We get an email from our HR manager and then some forms to fill out. The Insurance company makes the contact with the HR department, negotiates a package for the upcoming year, and then HR takes it from there.
Will the Insurance companies have access to corporate email?
What if the Insurance company asks HR to pass out the forms for the Employees to do it themselves? Will that be “encroaching” on the Institution too much? Will the Catholic Bishops complain that their Catholic HR employees are being paid on the clock to hit “FWD” in a mass emaill that allows Insurance companies to transmit the opt-in form to the employees? Will that single “FWD” of an email violate the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE?
Those are the concerns I have. That this theory sounds good. But, how will it logistically work? And will the Bishops say “okay, this is nice” simply because they can always find a way to stop it later? Do the Insurance Companies have to approach the employees off site, away from the Catholic institution, out of sight and hearing of all other employees who might be offended? Will the Catholic HR manager refuse to spend a single moment of time handing over the employee contact lists?
How will it work? I think the devil is in the details. Clever bastards tend to master the art of “technicalities” in the way they interpret the law.
Liberals and conservatives have failed to expose this religious liberty claim as the fig leaf over a logical fallacy that conservatives use repeatedly to create divisive culture wars for pure political gain.
Religious liberty is merely a fig leaf for conservative culture war attacks on moderates and liberals.
Name one conservative who supports religious liberty exemptions for
- institutions which have (religious) moral objections to war and refuse to cooperate with the military by allowing ROTC, military recruiters, notifying draft boards
- individuals who refuse to cooperate with the military system by registering with draft board and withholding the portion of taxes funding war making and its mass murder by way of nuclear weapons of innocent men, women, children, and abortion by incineration of pregnant women
- plural marriage by Mormons which considered it a core religious belief
- use of prohibited drugs like peyote and marijuana in religious ceremonies and practice
Note how conservatives claim opposition to gay marriage is a violation of religious conscious and will lead to plural marriage, which today results in prosecution of Mormons who follow the original Mormon faith calling for plural marriage.
Note how conservatives condemn drug use as a violation of religious belief in the body as a temple, and prosecute those who use drugs as part of their religious ceremonies and practice while carving out a religious exception for underage drinking of alcohol.
When conservatives have no rational democratic republican rationale for a political position, one fig leaf they grab to hide their fallacy is religious liberty.
You implicitly endorse the conservative fig leaf on their logical fallacy – conservatives don’t believe in a right to religious liberty unless it is a way of opposing the democratic republican government working based on facts and reason.
When Ron Paul calls for a policy that has been proven by Switzerland for centuries, he’s called “dangerous”. When liberals take a position like Ron Paul, they are considered weak on defense. When the Peace Churches, Catholics, and other religious groups take either institutional actions in opposition to the war machine on religious grounds they are sanctioned, and their members are prosecuted for refusing to pay the taxes going to fund the mass murder of innocents. And in general, those who oppose war on religious grounds are called anti-American and insane and told to leave America, clearly making warmongering a Republican religious belief they impose of everyone.
Whenever religious liberty is used as an argument, demand equal exceptions on religious liberty grounds for plural marriage for Mormons, exceptions to drug laws for use of drugs in religious practice, and exceptions to participation and support of war (NOT DEFENSE) on religious grounds.
You will immediately see the religious liberty argument dissolve into pure culture war for political gain.
This seems to focus on women who are employed. What about those who aren’t?
Way to cave to the Catholic child-rapers, Barack.
I’m starting to feel that the single biggest mistake of my adult life may have been voting for this man.
What a sad shell game. The Admin is making claims that can’t be correct. They claim The insurer will provide coverage to the religious institutions employee without any copay and without involving the employer in any way? How do they think the insurer will cover the coverage costs? They’ll simply fold the added costs into the cost of the umbrella policy offered through, the employer, and no one will be able to track it.
The Bishops will figure this out and continue to object, because the costs are pooled in insurance, and everyone in the pool pays the average pool costs. If the insurer tries to create a separate opt in pool only for th woman who want coverage, that means the copay is simply shifted via the higher pool rates. It’s a shell game, and the Admin is hoping no one can follow the pea.
No Obama cave would be complete without a rhetorical confirmation of right-wing views as icing on the cake:
“I saw that local churches did more good for a community than a government program ever could.”
I wonder why O and Sebelius didn’t begin this way instead of roiling the waters before engaging a fallback which achieves the same end result. That’s assuming this works.
There may be a problem with this new method, however, since the gov’t will now treat different religious entities differently, no? Some employers get a pass to not pay for the coverage, and some don’t get a pass — and it’s based on religious affiliation. Maybe I’m misreading something here.
The same problem could be faced by insurance companies. If you’re NOT Catholic, you pay for this in your premium. If you’re Catholic you don’t pay, and we’ll notify you it’s free.
The goal is of course to get the free contraception for all at no cost. But will today’s bandaid from O stick? I don’t see how the gov’t or insurance companies will be allowed to even poll individuals about their religion. Wouldn’t a non-Catholic challenge such a preference?
Kind of a stretch but I do recall, however, the religious exemption from the military draft some 50 years ago. Quakers and a few others could opt out. I don’t recall the hurdles they had to cross for that, but the gov’t got away with this disparate treatment. Maybe that wouldn’t fly today.
The hurdles to exemption from military service was generally high and required the right religious history, (Quaker, Amish, Brethren) and a statement at age 18 about one’s religious beliefs.
But more directly applicable, multiple challenges to paying for what you considered immoral war by religious belief were met with increasingly stiff laws, primarily driven conservatives who would not accept anyone not paying taxes to fund wars.
Catholics condemned war from the pulpit, and the Pope did so as well in the 60s and 70s, and those acts were attacked by conservatives as attempts to dictate government policy.
No conservative will speak in defense of religious liberty when it comes to refusing “providing material support for war by the US government” but will instead call for prison.