I can see an employer's trying to get out of obeying a law on religious grounds.
The Supreme Court says that won't work in the case you cited.
Cherry picking the laws you want to disobey based on your moral position is and always will be.
What if your employer was a Scientology asshole and you weren't, and decided to disobey the law based on Scientology "morals"?
If you want to have an organization where you hire only consenting members of your moral persuasion AND you refused all taxpayer funds, then run your org according to whatever "morals" you want. Once you start accepting taxpayer funds, you must obey the law.
In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of le VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.
Noted attorney David Boise explains that freedom of religion as outlined in the Cons ution is quite different from the bishops’ version:
Everybody is free to exercise the religion that they choose. [But] there isn`t anything in the Cons ution that says an employer, regardless of whether you are a church employer or not, isn`t subject to the same rules as any other employer.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/entr..._rights_issue/
The dumbest part of this whole argument is that many of these ins utions already provide prescription coverage that includes birth control pills. In fact, there are many women who take them for purposes other than for contraception and they are easily covered. All you need is a diagnosis of dysmenorrhea or some other menstrual irregularity for your physician to claim they are medically mandated. I know physicians at Catholic medical ins utions who do that for their patients.
Obama Didn't Cave on Birth Control
Everyone who was going to get birth control coverage before will still have access to it. Employees of Catholic schools and hospitals aren't always Catholic, and most sexually active women who aren't trying to get pregnant use birth control [2]. The new rule will not allow the religious views of the leadership of religiously-affiliated organizations to dictate whether birth control is provided to their employees. The intent of the first version of the rule was to make birth control easier to get. The new rule will achieve that goal. "No woman's health should depend on who she is, where she works, or how much money she makes," Obama said in his statement. This policy ensures that.
The coverage will still feature no copayments. The insurance companies that are being required to offer birth control coverage directly to the employees of religious organizations will have to offer it for free. There will be no difference in cost between the plan that covers birth control and the plan that doesn't. The Obama administration justifies this by noting that studies suggest that covering birth control is cost-neutral or even saves money for health insurers [3] because it's cheaper than pregnancy; it spaces out pregnancies, leading to healthier kids, and has other beneficial health effects [4].
The policy change still won't satisfy the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, which opposed the birth control provision from the start [1]. It's not a cave if your opponents aren't getting what they actually want. What the bishops desire is for the entire birth control rule to be repealed. They believe that no employer [5]—religious affiliation or not—should be required to offer birth control coverage. UPDATE, Friday 3:45 EST: The bishops have released a statement on the policy change [6] that says they're "studying" it and it's a "first step in the right direction." It's unclear whether they'll ultimately retreat from their original position or simply say this attempt is a good step but not sufficient.
The most important reproductive rights groups—Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, the American Civil Liberties Union, and so on—all support the policy shift. You can bet that these politically savvy groups would be hollering to high heaven if they thought that women had been betrayed.
This whole scuffle was an intriguing policy dilemma, pitting women's health advocates versus faith leaders waving the banner of religious freedom. But with this move, Obama has demonstrated that it's possible to sidestep the red-hot politics of the dispute and work out a reasonable policy outcome that's backed by reproductive rights groups and the Catholic Health Association [1]. It's not likely, though, that the social conservatives who have bashed Obama as an implacable foe of religious freedom will give it a rest.
http://motherjones.com/print/161931
=======
Repugs were further graved into their tombstones as misogynists, as fake moral dictators obsessed with pussies and sex.
Democratic Women Boycott House Contraception Hearing After Republicans Prevent Women From Testifying
This morning, Democrats tore into House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) for preventing women from testifying before a hearing examining the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring employers and insurers to provide contraception coverage to their employees. Republicans oppose the administration’s rule and have sponsored legislation that would allow employers to limit the availability of birth control to women.
Ranking committee member Elijah mings (D-MD) had asked Issa to include a female witness at the hearing, but the Chairman refused, arguing that “As the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience, he believes that Ms. Fluke is not an appropriate witness.”
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...om-testifying/
Repugs campaigning hard for the misogynist vote.
Repugs hate big govt and love "freedom and liberty", but want to allow UCA business managers into gynecologists making health care decisions.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...#ixzz2JfZaMhABFor the second time in a year, the Obama administration has backtracked on its requirement to make religious ins utions pay for contraception.
A new policy announced Friday further expanded the exemption to Obamacare: Women will still be able to get the same health benefits, but certain religious employers won’t have to pay for them. Instead, ins utions that insure themselves can use a third-party to find a separate health insurance plan to pay for and provide the contraceptives.
Facing outrage from ins utions that objected to the contraception requirement on moral grounds, the administration had already exempted some religious ins utions — churches were always exempt — from requiring contraception coverage last year. Then, Obama exempted some religiously affiliated ins utions, such as evangelical Christian schools or Catholic hospitals, from covering contraception in their plans, forcing insurers to offer free contraception to those employed by them.
Friday’s shift broadened the definition of which groups would be exempt and addressed where the money to pay for the guaranteed coverage would come from so that religious groups wouldn’t be paying even indirectly.
Women will get a small separate insurance policy that covers contraception that is not paid for by the religious employer and does not cost the woman anything. Costs will be covered by fees insurers pay to participate in the new federal health exchanges being set up under Obamacare.
The new policy also expands the definition of “religious employer,” potentially allowing more ins utions to get out of the requirement. The new policy eliminates the requirement that they have religious values in their purpose, employ people of the same religion and primarily serve people with the same religious values.
so much for Obama's war on Catholics . . .
Them Catholics done kicked his ass.
Probably want to revisit the OP "Obama Punks the GOP on Contraception "
Barry "taking over health care" like an insane dictator. right-wing s WRONG AGAIN.
'sup, coward?
'sup, stalker?
dont confuse mocking with stalking, coward.
Aw, the Catholic Tea Party is handing out contraceptives and birth control. How nice.
'sup, stalker?
congratulations women you can be s for free while us males have to pay for our contraception
And i thought women wanted equality...
at least viagra is covered. that's a real medical condition . . .
viagra is not contaception, and if it meant women's didn't get free pills while i have to pay for wraps i'd say take the damn viagra off.
well, it's still covered. bet you could get free wraps at Planned Parenthood if you cared so much.
Maybe i don't want those free planned parenthood wraps that cost $6 for 60, that comes out to .10 cents a day 3.00 a month while women get pills that are 50 a month which is a huge difference. I should be able to get the expensive covered by the insurance like women do.
now that this "I can impose my morals on my employees" slippery slope has been been stepped onto, expect more self-righteous "Christian" authoritarians to start inflicting other aspects of their moral code on employees and customers, who are mostly in a weak position to resist due to the weak job market.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
