Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
@

Modifying health rule for women

WASHINGTON - After months of criticism and legal challenges, President Obama's administration proposed Friday that religious institutions would not be required to provide their employees with health insurance coverage for birth control.

Nonprofit organizations that had objected to the mandate on moral grounds, including hospitals and universities, would be able to offer plans that don't cover contraceptives, while their employees could enroll in separate insurance policies that would cover birth control.

The contraceptives' cost would be paid for through long-term health benefits of preventive coverage and fees insurers pay to participate in the health exchanges set up as part of the federal health-care law passed in 2010, according to administration officials.

"The administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

The proposal - the second change to quell criticism in a year - is part of a set of recommendations announced Friday that might be tweaked further after public input. But it still fell short of satisfying critics.

The White House has struggled for two years to strike a balance between its desire to provide free birth control through health insurance with a need to accommodate the religious freedom of employers who provide insurance but object to contraception on moral grounds.

White House officials declined to answer a series of questions about the recommendations Friday, instead saying that they reflected Obama's views.

"The president has been very clear about his views on this," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "He's been very clear about what he believes are two compelling interests. . . . And he has instructed those who work for him on this issue to be cognizant of those criteria."

Women's groups applauded the move, saying it would ensure that women have access to contraceptives as part of basic health-care coverage.

From the News Desk
Stay Connected

"The principle is clear and consistent," said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control."

Religious groups were still dissatisfied with the proposal, which also would expand the definition of religious institutions.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has been sharply critical of the mandate, said it was reviewing the proposed changes. Others assailed them.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has filed several lawsuits challenging the mandate, said it was "extremely disappointed" with what it called an inadequate proposal.

Kyle Duncan, the fund's general counsel, suggested that "very, very few" organizations, if any, are likely to get any relief from the proposed changes. "We were hoping for much, much more from the administration," Duncan said, noting that the proposal would have no effect on for-profit organizations and family owned businesses.

The contraceptive mandate spurred more than 40 lawsuits nationwide, filed by employers including the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami and the University of Notre Dame. Judges have dismissed many of the legal challenges, reasoning that lawsuits are premature because the mandate hasn't kicked in yet.

In a notable ruling in December, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit kept alive the lawsuits filed by North Carolina's Belmont Abbey College as well as Illinois' Wheaton College. The appellate court, often considered the nation's second most powerful, also set firm deadlines for the Obama administration to write the promised provisions protecting those with religious objections.

The three-page appellate court ruling, issued Dec. 18, ordered the administration to report every 60 days on its progress in revising the contraception-mandate rules.

Anita Kumar and Lesley Clark McCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS
email
You May Also Like
Comments  (16)
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 6:55 AM, 02/02/2013
    She's praying the liberal rosary. Her monthly birth control kit.
    Mr. Smith
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 7:11 AM, 02/02/2013
    How's that tax increases doin for all U middle class dopes that reelected this guy, ur gonna get more in the coming months and deservedly so.
    Faadoogled
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 7:37 AM, 02/02/2013
    I must have been out of the country when it was decided that somehow it was my health insurers responsibility to prevent me from procreating. When I was a young man, I paid for my own condoms and my wife bought her own birth control pills. It was OUR responsibility to control our own bodies, especially in matters so personal as sexual intercourse. How did we ever get to this sad, sad situation?
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:09 AM, 02/02/2013
    Monk I agree with you on this subject. The reason the government is involved in our personal lives is so THEY can gain more and more control over what we do. Why is the gov't in the abortion biz? Why ? Our government is out of control. If Obama were a republican the lefties would be going nuts over all the regulations/mandates/control.
    coniljw
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 7:39 AM, 02/02/2013
    Why should birth control pills be considered covered under any insurance plan? It is not associated with any physical ailment.
    Bobphxville
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:02 AM, 02/02/2013
    I agree with Bob - birth control has absolutely nothing to do with "women's health", it has to do with a personal choice, and as such, people should be responsible for their own birth control - including paying for it on their own. If you're too poor & can't afford to pay for it, simply exercise a little self-control & don't do the horizontal mambo. Of course, those that won't exercise said self-control are the ones who think they are "entitled" and are one of the biggest problems this country has...
    rmazzeo
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:06 AM, 02/02/2013
    Smoke & mirrors again so people will think Obama is caving in to the religious orgs. This change doesn't mean anything. And all of you who think Obama can legally mandate to people/orgs what they will & won't do may be surprised when he mandates something you don't like. By then it will be too late; the king has crowned himself with your blessings.
    coniljw
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:31 AM, 02/02/2013
    You gotta love these laws that are changed when it's convenient. I'm for this change but all these little tweaks shows us what will happen when politics gets involved. Need help winning an election? Let's change the mandate so the group you're courting gets better care and will vote for you.
    Phillies2008WSChamps
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:49 AM, 02/02/2013
    It's surprising that the president would seek to provide his core constituency with the means to stop or slow their creation of new voters.
    ekw555
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:51 AM, 02/02/2013
    All hail Lord Obama!

    Hobo Floto Voto
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 8:51 AM, 02/02/2013
    Obama! the all-powerful and all-controlling.
    gxel
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:05 AM, 02/02/2013
    Big Brother Obama knows best....just ask him.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:11 AM, 02/02/2013
    Hey King Obama ... Where are all the jobs at?
    Hobo Floto Voto
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:11 PM, 02/02/2013
    I have a dream! A dream that someday laws will again adhere to the Constitution. That someday it will not be up to the president to make decisions that Congress had no right to authorize. A dream that someday the public will get wise to how the creeping welfare state is destroying the economy and America's moral character. A dream that Americans will re-discover their former national character as independent, self-reliant, enterprising individuals. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
    Phillip Schearer
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:37 PM, 02/02/2013
    well said Phillip Schearer
    Hobo Floto Voto


View comments: 1  |  2