Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: FAKE Righteous Indignation Gets Another Obama End-Run: Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 11, 2012, 2:11 a.m. EST by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

FAKE Righteous Indignation Gets Another Obama End-Run:

Employers Have Had to Provide Birth Control Coverage Since 2000

Did you know that, by federal rule which has been upheld in the courts, employers and insurers have had to provide birth control as part of preventive care for women? And that that's been the case since 2000, throughout the Bush administration? Lost in the firestorm the far-right has started, and that the traditional media can't resist blowing up, is the fact that coverage of prescription contraception is remarkably run-of-the mill and has been controversy-free for over a decade.

Mother Jones reports:

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 Title 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 ...

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

The only thing that's changed in the mandate is that the coverage be provided a no cost, like all the other preventive care programs covered by the Affordable Care Act. Well, that's the only thing that's changed in terms of the policy. That, and that now 90 percent of employer-based plans offer contraceptive coverage. Oh, and that President Obama's plan allows for an exemption for religious institutions. The EEOC ruling does not, and nary a peep has been raised about that in 12 years.

What's really changed is that this expansion of the rule was done by a Kenyan Muslim socialist president. [Who is also guilty of being Black.]

By Joan McCarter | Sourced from Daily Kos Posted at February 9, 2012, 4:56 pm

So Obama makes an End-Run [Suck on it Liars!]

February 10, 2012 02:00 PM Obama Finesses Furious Catholic Bishops On Contraception Issue

By karoli


After a two-week firestorm of controversy on the question of religious institutions that are not churches providing contraceptives with no copayment, the Obama administration changed the final rule in several respects. Here they are, in a nutshell:

Institutions which are affiliated with a church such as Catholic hospitals, universities, and the like will not have to include birth control in the health insurance they provide to employees.
Employees of those institutions will have access to contraceptives without a copayment because the insurer will cover it with no copayments separately. This means the insurer will reach out to women to offer free contraceptives outside of any relationship with their employer.
For religious employers who use insurance companies, this will be the final rule and women will have access to contraceptives without copayments beginning August 1, 2012.

And with that, heads exploded from here to Rome. The video above is an interview Catholic League's Bill Donohue did on Friday's Megyn Kelly show, after the announcement of the change in the rule. You really must listen to him rant on and on, threatening that President Obama "will pay for this," and alleging that it really is a secret plot to force the Catholic Church to pay for abortions. And of course, all of his false claims went unchallenged.

But back to the issue at hand. The goal was to make contraceptives available to women without a copayment. This satisfies that goal, because insurers will simply take care of the cost without including contraception coverage in the plan these institutions adopt. It is far less expensive for them to provide full coverage for birth control than it is for them to provide maternity coverage and well baby care for all of those babies that would come into the world as a result of not having any contraceptives available. To that end, the decision was a complete end-run around the bishops' plan to erode support for the ACA by making a big deal out of this rule.

From the President's remarks on Friday:

Today, we've reached a decision on how to move forward. Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services — no matter where they work. So that core principle remains. But if a woman’s employer is a charity or a hospital that has a religious objection to providing contraceptive services as part of their health plan, the insurance company — not the hospital, not the charity — will be required to reach out and offer the woman contraceptive care free of charge, without co-pays and without hassles.

The result will be that religious organizations won’t have to pay for these services, and no religious institution will have to provide these services directly. Let me repeat: These employers will not have to pay for, or provide, contraceptive services. But women who work at these institutions will have access to free contraceptive services, just like other women, and they'll no longer have to pay hundreds of dollars a year that could go towards paying the rent or buying groceries. 

There are, obviously, two strategies in play here. On the legal and moral side, removing religious charities as middleme`n takes away the claim that the government was impinging on religious liberties. Since it seemed nearly impossible for the actual facts to be discussed rationally on news shows, the truth was being buried in a sea of cries over "big government telling churches what to do." For examples, have a look at the MSNBC coverage, where the stories were told every day through the frame of Catholic bishops. From Chris Matthews to Lawrence O'Donnell, there wasn't a lot of accuracy in what they were saying. Rachel Maddow got it right, but also got no credit.

Beyond that, there is also the political calculation. Women's reproductive health is a winning issue for the President despite the cries and whimpers of the Catholic Church, and by removing their objections, all of those far-right Republican candidates are now just flatly against women. Marco Rubio wants all employers to have the right to object so that all women, not just religious ones would be left out in the cold while the old men still get to fill their sexual enhancement prescriptions with minimal copayments. Rick Santorum agrees, as do the Catholic Bishops. Color me unsurprised.

On the other side, Planned Parenthood and the Catholic Health Association have both come out in support of this policy. Greg Sargent notes that the only remaining wedge issue is the one Democrats can now use against Republicans, especially after they spent the better part of two weeks screaming about how women shouldn't have access to birth control.

I actually see this as a better way to approach the issue than forcing employers to come to some sort of "compromise" over it, and certainly better for women overall because it takes their employer out of the process entirely. Others have lingering concerns. Digby is concerned that because the bishops, et al won't be satisfied with this (see video above for example), it was a mistake to compromise. But then again, is this a compromise as much as it is an end run around their obstruction? They can fume all day long but that won't mean they're going to get anywhere. If they're out of play on the board, how exactly do they make a difference? Digby quotes Lindsay Beyerstein, who asks this:

If this compromise shuts up the bishops and smooths the way for free birth control, it's worth doing. In the grand scheme of things, it's not very much money. As the employee of secular organizations, I'm okay with subsidizing somebody else's birth control. It's not fair, but unlike the bishops, I'm a pragmatist. The most important thing is getting birth control to people who need it.

But if the bishops won't accept this deal, Obama should stop trying to accommodate them. Respect for religious freedom does not include paying solemn lip service to the contraception cooties.

The bishops don't need to accept this deal. It's done, out of their hands. It wasn't offered as something for them to approve. It was offered as the final cut, and if they want to keep complaining and pulling their puppet-politicians' strings, let them. It just erodes support for them with women and many independents who agree with the idea of providing affordable (free) access to birth control.

I mean, is anyone going to be swayed by Bill Donohue's sputters about this being a secret plot to force the Church to pay for abortions? Really?

[Obama proves once again that smarts trump hysteria. What new subterfuge will righties turn to next?]




Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by betuadollar (-313) 6 years ago

What your posting represents is naivete at its finest. Most insurance companies in the US don't even cover doctor visits, not even well-baby-care... they don't cover prescription drugs... and now you feel it necessary they cover contraceptives free of a co-pay?

The Pill should be outlawed - it does not protect against STDs and the side effects far outweigh the benefit of convenience. No female stays on the Pill indefinitely, they ALL suffer these side effects.

I can understand if people want contraceptive surgical procedures covered but as someone who has gotten laid literally tens of thousands of times, I find totally ludicrous that some would expect an insurance company to pay for their contraceptives.

What this is, is a political statement intended to put the Church in "its place."

The rights of women, regarding sexuality, free of all inconvenience, do not trump the rights of the Church to a belief in sexual restraint; period, end of story.

And just to add insult to injury, they violated the First Amendment.

This is a government of lowlife dirt-bags.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 6 years ago

Hi JIFFY, Thank you for post. Best Regards, Nevada

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 6 years ago


Recrimination, pettifogging, and now they're pulling out the old dusty "Righteous Indignation." The righties are getting very desperate. Remember, if they didn't have dirty tricks and had to debate openly and honestly on the facts of issues, their circus caravans would be banned from every town in America.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (5843) 6 years ago