Apartment complex owners whose religious beliefs include opposition to miscegenation are being forced to subsidize something against their religious beliefs when they are not allowed to exclude mixed-race couples.
They are being required to devote their resources and their landlordly services to providing living quarters to such a couple, which they consider an abomination. The fact that they’re getting paid for complying with abomination doesn’t mean that they’re not being forced by the government to support something against their religious views.
You are both stretching this analogy way too far. The apartment owners aren’t subsidizing anything. Also, the apartment complex is deliberatly trying to exclude those people from renting their units. The parallel would be not hiring anyone on birth control. I certainly wouldn’t put that past the church but that is different from not wanting to subsidize the use of contraceptives.
Catholic Charities of California and ofNew Yorktook their objections to the contraceptive coverage mandate to the state supreme court. Both the California and New York Supreme Courts upheld the mandate. The New York Supreme court:
and again from my previous cite, The California Supreme Court in their strongly worded decision:
Catholic Charities appealed both decisions to the US Supreme Court which declined to review it.
Since then many Catholic affiliated institutions became self-insured to work around the mandate. The HHS preventive care mandate of the PPACA* does not exempt* self-insured religious affiliated institutions from contraceptive coverage, but allows for insurance companies to offer contraceptive coverage at no cost to employees of self-insured religiously affiliated institutions.
Employers do not choose what their prescriptions drug benefit covers. They may negotiate what percentage is covered for prescriptions drugs, but the insurance company may determines specific drug coverage based on their formulary.
Do you think an employer who is a scientologist can exempt antidepressants from prescriptions drug coverage? NO, not if they cover prescription drug coverage as part of their health benefit package.
Do you think a vegetarian/vegan employer who has moral issue with eating animals can exempt drugs that treat high cholesterol, diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases? Or require their employers to prove their high cholesterol, diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases are congenital and not the result of consuming animal products in order to get their treatment covered? NO
As to the miscegenation belief and renting apartment to mixed race couple, I think a better analogy would be - can an employer deny spousal health benefits to one partner of the mixed race marriage, if the employer believes that miscegenation is a sin? When the employees benefit package includes spousal benefits? NO
Of the 28 states that require private employers to provide contraception coverage when it covers prescription drugs and preventive care,* 8 states provide no exemptions.*
The remaining 20 states allow exemptions in the following manner:
The reason the California (and New York law) are notable:
And it is the language and exemptions of the California and New York laws that the HHS mandate mirrors.
Just for the record, the morning after pill isn’t an abortifacient. I bring this up because a lot of people erroneously think it is. It works by preventing ovulation and fertilization. Once fertilization happens, there’s no evidence it prevents implantation. That’s why it has to be taken so soon after sex. Once fertilization has occurred, it’s pretty much worthless.
People confuse it with RU-486, which does terminate pregnancy.
Insurance is part of a person’s pay, so they should be able to use their money anyway they wish. No one is forceing anyone who doesn’t want to use it. Not allowing a person to use Birth control is adding to poverty or abusing childern (in some cases). One need look to Haiti and the Sudan and see the results of where birth control is not used, also there was a man who helped a lot of people out of poverty by providing and showing how a family of 4 could live healthier and better lives than one of 6 or more He taught them how to use a condom to lower the chances of conception!
This brings to my mind the idea of: if a company or religious institution hires some one who uses part of it’s pay to aquire birth control or even say a fire arm to kill some one, then, is the employer paying for that? It sounds like a way a religion wants to force it’s beliefs on others. I also read where 80+ percent of RC’s use birth control or have a Vasectomy or their tubes tied.
If offering birth control ist net cost saving for the insurance companies, why make coverage mandatory?
I - much like about 90% of the european electorate - wholeheartedly support the idea of UHC. I think the end of providing affordable health care for everyone justifies the means of slightly curtailing the freedom of choice of insurance companies and the healthy majority. That’s essentially where the “Rebublican point of view” and I are in disagreement.
Having said that, I don’t understand why supporters of UHC insist on mandatory coverage of birth control. Oral contraceptives are
a).. fairly cheap, so the overwhelming majority can buy it out of the pocket
b).. used by a large majority of female insurents
c).. are - in most case - not medically necessary
The idea of insurance is distribution of risk. Insuring something with the attributes a) and b) seems like a waste of money (That’s the reason why in my opinion insurance policies with deductibles are a good idea)
And without c), there are no ethical arguments (like providing insulin for a diabtec) either. So why bother?
I don’t subscribe to the religious argument brought forward on this issue. But dropping mandatory coverage for birth control wouldn’t hurt the main objective of UHC. Let it go!
Using contraceptives to prevent unintended pregnancy is medically necessary. Planning and spacing pregnancies improve the health of women, their children and their families. Not to mention the social and economic factors.
Women’s health care is over politicized enough and should not be used as a political bargaining tool. Denying coverage for contraceptives that almost every female uses and can only access by entering the US health care system is a gender equity issue.
Your argument might have more merit if (female) contraceptives were available over the counter like (male) condoms, but they are only available after seeing a healthcare provider who performs an exam and writes a prescription (or inserts an implant like an IUD, etc), accessed through health insurance.
However, there is certainly a valid argument that many female contraceptives should be available over the counter.
To be honest, I haven’t. I had an idea of the magnitude we are talking about. The exact numbers I had to look up. At an online pharmacy for my country, a 3 month package of Yasmin ist 48€ (Cite, German). According to Planned Parenthood, costs are between 15 and 50 Dollars per month in America.
There are cheaper methods to prevent prengnancies. Condoms, sex education… And, like I said, even the pill is not THAT expensive.
I don’t think it’s prudent to try to solve inequality issues via UHC policy, when you’ve got 52 million uninsured persons.
And 15-50 Dollars per month is not very effective to “deny” the use of contraceptives.
I agree. Preventive medical exams by a gynecologist once a year should be mandatorily covered regardless of contraceptive use, including consultation about birth control and a PAP-smear. OTC sale of oral contraceptives would be a good thing.
Male condoms (which are most frequently sold OTC) are designed for male autonomy and depend more on male efficacy of use (though females should certainly insist their partner wear one). Barrier methods that are designed for female anatomy and depend more on female efficacy of use - like a diaphragm or cervical cap - are not available OTC in the US. Supposedly women must be “sized” for them by a healthcare provider and then get prescription. Funny, men don’t need to be "sized’ for condoms, eh? Wonder how the variation in cervix size compares to penis size, that justifies one gender needing to be sized by a healthcare provider and not the other?
Hmm, using health policy to address gender inequity in healthcare doesn’t seem prudent to you? Guess we’ll just have to disagree on that. Women experience unbelievable amounts of paternalism in their sexual health care. Yet, no one blinks an eye when Viagra, and Low-T drugs are covered by insurance without controversy. Ah yes, because impotency (now being peddled as erectile dysfunction) is now considered a worthy physiological ailment where as preventing unintended pregnancy is not. Cause yanno, Hugh Heffner getting it up at 90 years old is just how men are supposed to be, right? And Michelle Duggar is the model of women’s health.
You obviously are quite ignorant on the costs of contraceptives. A woman’s childbearing years span ~30 years (15 average age of menarche to 45 average age of menopause). The average number of children a woman desires in the US is ~2 so that leaves ~20-25 years of pregnancy avoidance. You do the math.
I’m sure generic diabetes drugs and statins only cost a couple dollars a month, yet no one is suggesting that we exclude these treatments from insurance coverage? Why do women get thrown under the bus?
I don’t think Viagra has to be covered necessarily. Still, impotence prevents you from having sex. Not using oral contraceptives does not.
And paternalism towards women doesn’t disappear just because they get their contraceptives for free.
I’ aware of that. But for the question wheter it’s affordable, lifetime cost is not a useful parameter. It’s 15 to 50 Dollars per month in your country. Over here, it’s about 20 Euros per month.
Like I said, I do support deductibles.
Teaching abstinence in sex education is like promoting taking the bus in a save driving course. The pullout method is bullshit. Prayer? Come on!
How about: Awareness that both sexes are responsible for contraception. Proper use of condoms. Proper use and caveats of oral contraceptives. Do you suggest sex ed. is useless in preventing unwanted pregnancies?
