HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Religious groups win figh...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:40 PM

Religious groups win fight over birth control

Religious employers such as the Catholic Diocese of Nashville would not have to provide contraceptive coverage for workers under new rules released today by the Obama administration.

The new rules expand the exemption for religious groups to include religious hospitals, charities and schools. Previous rules had applied primarily to houses of worship.

The Catholic diocese in Nashville was one of a number of faith-based groups who sued to change the rules.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20130201/NEWS06/302010130/Religious-groups-win-fight-over-birth-control?odyssey=mod|breaking|text|FRONTPAGE

20 replies, 1152 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 20 replies Author Time Post
Reply Religious groups win fight over birth control (Original post)
spanone Feb 2013 OP
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #1
CTyankee Feb 2013 #16
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #18
CTyankee Feb 2013 #19
southernyankeebelle Feb 2013 #20
Autumn Feb 2013 #2
LeftInTX Feb 2013 #4
msanthrope Feb 2013 #10
Enrique Feb 2013 #15
Control-Z Feb 2013 #3
msanthrope Feb 2013 #7
Control-Z Feb 2013 #13
Lars39 Feb 2013 #5
msanthrope Feb 2013 #8
msanthrope Feb 2013 #6
atreides1 Feb 2013 #9
CTyankee Feb 2013 #17
Zax2me Feb 2013 #11
msongs Feb 2013 #12
hamsterjill Feb 2013 #14

Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:45 PM

1. So will the patient be able to buy them separately? Anyone know.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #1)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:24 PM

16. AFAIK, the insurance company will have to provide them for free to the employee.

So she/he gets the contraceptives covered, just not by the employer, but by the employer's insurance company.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #16)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:52 PM

18. Thanks CTYank. I think its so confusing.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to southernyankeebelle (Reply #18)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:55 PM

19. I almost freaked when I read the scary headlines that Obama had caved to the religious

Right, too. It wasn't until I read the NYT story and the paper's approving editorial that I breathed more easily.

This is good. It takes the religious liberty issue somewhat off the table but not of course completely, if you read the rest of the article.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CTyankee (Reply #19)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 04:09 PM

20. We don't have to worry no matter what they will find something wrong with it.

 

Obama can say the say is blue and the religious crazy and right will say no way its pink. I just hope people will open their mind and vote dem or indep come 2014 and 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:45 PM

2. Did they provide contraceptive coverage before the reform act?

Just curious and wanting to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:52 PM

4. No

Catholic hospitals employee health insurance does not cover birth control.

I used to work at a Catholic hospital.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:02 PM

10. No--but now, these employees are covered by their insurance companies directly for bc.

So the coverage is there.

Let the insurance companies complain to their clients about the two policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Autumn (Reply #2)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:19 PM

15. at least one did

Wheaton College in IL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:47 PM

3. It is one step forward,

ten steps back, for women. This makes me sick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Control-Z (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:00 PM

7. Coverage is provided by the insurance company, not the employer for institutions claiming this.

Calm down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:10 PM

13. Calm down?

Before I read the message of your post I was going to reply with a thank you. I had, in fact, heard more about the details after my original response.

But, calm down? I hope it was not your intent to be as condescending as it appears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:56 PM

5. I'm bettin' this includes Baptist Hospital in Nashville, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lars39 (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:01 PM

8. Baptist would have to claim that they are primarily a religious institution, but their insurer would

have to provide coverage for bc, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:59 PM

6. Unrec for vagueness--these employees are directly covered by their insurance companies, not the

insurers. The rules allow for expansion from houses of worship to primarily religious institutions. Employees would have bc covered directly by the insurance companies, not the insurer.

Why would you post such an incomplete article?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:02 PM

9. Oh well

And yet another white flag is raised in surrender...but I guess it evens out as long as those religious affiliated hospitals, charities and schools are still prevented from bigoted hiring practices!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to atreides1 (Reply #9)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 03:33 PM

17. from the New York Times article today:

"Female employees could get free contraceptive coverage through a separate plan that would be provided by a health insurer. Institutions objecting to the coverage would not pay for the contraceptives.

Insurance companies would bear the cost of providing the separate coverage, with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births."

full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/02/us/politics/white-house-proposes-compromise-on-contraception-coverage.html?_r=0

I'm not sure how this is the white flag of surrender as much as it is getting a solution which sounds workable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:03 PM

11. Good. Government should stay out of our sex lives.

 

As long as it isn't of a criminal sort, of course.
Which brings to point - instead of forcing Catholics to provide this silly coverage that a simple trip to a free clinic can solve, and violating rights -
Use those resources instead to investigate all the sex crimes against minors in Catholic settings over the years.
This birth control free for all now everyone must participate! or bust is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:03 PM

12. when they start paying taxes then they can have a say in the rules nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 05:20 PM

14. Hobby Lobby

"The Obama administration released new HHS mandate rules today that attempt to expand the number of religious groups that can opt out of the pro-abortion mandate but that leaves religiously-run companies like Hobby Lobby out in the cold. Pro-life advocates oppose the mandate because it forces religious groups to pay for birth control and drugs that may cause abortions."


More at this link:

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/02/01/new-hhs-mandate-rules-force-hobby-lobby-any-religious-biz-to-comply/


Am I reading this correctly in that this is a partial victory in that private employers like Hobby Lobby will have to cover birth control?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread