General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCatholic Church versus Health Insurance Industry….and States Rights
To hear some Republicans talk, Obama is about to force all the nations private insurers to offer coverage for contraceptive services, radically altering health care in this country. This is not true. As of 2004,
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2004/06/15/index.html
Contraception is a no brainer for an insurance plan. Pregnancy---and especially the cost of a complicated pregnancy which could soar into the millions if a premature baby requires NICU care---is expensive. Birth control is cheap.
From an employers point of view, a woman using contraception is much less likely to take sick time, request maternity leave or decide to quit work and stay at home.
Here is something that some folks may find even more surprising:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/abortion-care-coverage-health-care-reform-getting-facts-straight-29733.htm
Why do a majority of private plans cover abortion? Do they hate life? No, they realize that an elective termination is cheaper than pregnancy, particularly an unplanned, potentially complicated pregnancy.
The Catholic Church wants the federal government to allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage. This is not simply the Catholic Church versus the Feds. This is the Vatican versus Your States Rights. Because a majority of states now require that employers sponsored health insurance include birth control coverage.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx
What happens to Californias birth control mandate if the Catholic Church succeeds in getting the federal government (say under a Rick Santorum administration) to make contraception coverage optional? Which way would the (Catholic dominated) Supreme Court lean if asked to consider this states rights versus federal rights issue? Hint: the SCOTUS threw states rights out the window in Bush v. Gore. And then what happens if the Church launches a boycott of employers who voluntarily offer contraception coverage? Not all at once. One at a time, picking off easy targets in order to pressure struggling businesses across the country to shed birth control coverage for its employees?
It is always depressing when we have to go back and defend one of the milestones in the road for equality. We should be plowing forward, not losing ground.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)If Mr. O. had a good advisory team they would tell him to ignore this shit and make every speech about the economy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)birth control.
At the end of the day, women in CC-owned businesses still have free birth control. And the CC gets to explain why PBO's compromise isn't good enough for them.
The CC loses this fight, and it presages how the culture wars are to be won.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)time has passed them by.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)but if you try to impose a government mandate you'll bring down an avalanche of political opposition.
ThereGoYou
(1 post)Why do Progressives want to force the Catholic Charities to pay for the ultimate human rights violation not being born?
RainDog
(28,784 posts)this is the "every sperm is sacred" argument.
I wonder if the bishops spit or swallowed when they molested those boys?
what moral authority does this organization have to say anything about human life? none.
RainDog
(28,784 posts)Catholic Charities are not asked to pay. insurance cos are paying. the church just doesn't want to have to provide healthcare to females because they think they have a right to control the private lives of their employees.
sort of like slavery.