To read the column, go here.
To read more on the backroom politicking on contraceptives and your U.S. government, go here. For a little historic perspective on women’s health, go here.
To read the Public Religion Research Institute’s poll on America’s thoughts on contraceptives, go here.
To read about Susan G. Komen for the Cure various explanations of their defunding of Planned Parenthood, go here. To read about their efforts to retain “for the cure,” go here. To read Komen’s stance on human embyronic stem cell research, go here or read this: StatementEmbryonicStemCell_252012
To read more about Breast Cancer Action’s Think Before You Pink campaign, go here. To read more about KFC’s pink baskets, go here.
To read about Pres. Obama’s deliberations on the contraceptive issue within the Affordable Care Act, go here. To read his statement on the compromise, go here. To read a bit more, go here or, for the big picture, go here.
To read more about Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, go here.
The days are just packed, so I welcome you to take some days off with me (well, not “with” me, but you get my meaning), and let’s meet back up here on Wednesday. Onward! To a brigher tomorrow!
Today, Pres. Obama announced that religious employers would not be required to provide health care coverage that includes contraceptives if doing so violates the tenets of their faith. Instead, he said, that responsibility will pass to the insurers.
Today’s guest blogger, Jennifer C. Jaff, explores precisely what that compromise means. Jaff is the executive director of Advocacy for Patients with Chronic Illness, Inc. and if there’s any area of insurance or health care she hasn’t explored, it’s jsut not worth exploring. Thank you, Sis. Jennifer, for turning this around so fast.
Thanks to the health reform law, most insurance plans will have to cover preventive services, including contraception, without charging a dime – no copay, no deductible – as of August 2012. Religious employers argued that they should not have to play any role in promoting contraception based on their “conscientious objection” to contraception. For the record, I think this so-called conscientious objection is a flagrant attempt to control women’s bodies, women’s health – to see us as incubators.
Still, there are a lot of people – including a lot of Democrats like our own John Larson – who feel that forcing primarily Catholic employers like St. Francis Hospital to offer contraception to their employees (many of whom may not be Catholic, by the way) would encroach on their religious freedom. Agree or disagree, that’s their view.
President Obama, seeking to calm a rising storm over this issue, sought a compromise that would allow any woman who wants contraception to get it without the religious employer’s involvement.
What he came up with is actually pretty ingenious. Any employee of a religious institution who wants contraception will be able to get it, for free. But religious employers don’t have to provide, pay for, or refer for contractive coverage. Instead, insurers – the insurer chosen by the religious employer, paid for by the religious employer – have to offer all insureds free contraception. So employees of religious institutions have unfettered access to free contraceptives and the religious employer can have no part in that.
I’m not sure all religious employers will be satisfied with this. The Bishops do not want women to have access to contraception – period. They will say that somehow the employer is subsidizing contraception by contributing to the employees’ insurance premium. But the President’s policy, and the regulations that will follow within the next year, will make it clear that all insurers have to cover contraceptives at no cost to insureds and at no cost to the religious employer. Religious conservatives who, for example, believe that states and the federal government subsidize abortions by providing family planning grants to groups that perform abortions, will not be happy with this compromise. That should make us feel better; they will be unhappy because this compromise means that any woman in America who has health insurance can get free contraception. Really, isn’t that what we wanted?
It’s long, but worth the read, from Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice:
We are glad to see that the administration did not choose to cave completely to the bishops. But the reality is that this compromise relies on insurance companies doing the right thing, and gives victory #1 to the bishops on their ‘religious liberty’ shopping list.
Previous compromises of this nature, such as that in Hawaii, may have made some conservatives happy, but they have also meant that some women have not been able to access coverage in a timely and easy manner. That is unacceptable.
It’s unfortunate that on this issue, as many others, far too many in the administration and Congress have sacrificed women’s health to get something they want more. Rejecting the FDA’s advice on Plan B, the continued implementation of the Hyde Amendment, attacks on funding for Title X, lack of abortion coverage in the Affordable Care Act—the list goes on and on. This administration has shown that it will not stand with women when it comes to supporting access to, and easing the availability of, reproductive healthcare services. Not only that, it means that those advocates and champions in Congress who fought hard over the past three weeks to support the administration’s proposal on birth control have been hung out to dry.
One wonders what has been gained by this ‘accommodation.’ It certainly isn’t the support of Catholics. The majority of Catholics are in favor of contraceptive access for women, regardless of where they work. And despite hopes and promises, the bishops won’t be throwing their support behind this administration, or women’s health, or true religious liberty anytime soon.
The US bishops will move on to the other items on their list, demanding special treatment in federal contracts, allowing them to opt out of providing reproductive healthcare services and condoms for HIV prevention, forcing compromises in those states that have marriage equality statutes and allowing religious employers to discriminate in hiring practices. If successful, it means that people who have been trafficked, refugees, recipients of foreign assistance, Catholics and non-Catholics working for Catholic institutions and many others may experience state-sanctioned discrimination.
Given that the administration has said that the ‘accommodation’ will leave religiously affiliated organizations with clean hands if they do not want to cover birth control, it is doubly disappointing that the White House did not agree to extend the new plan to churches and others who were granted an exemption. It means that the gardeners, secretaries, cleaners, cooks and all those who work for churches around the country will continue to be discriminated against.
It’s now clear that there are members of both parties who have decided that women’s health coverage is a bargaining chip they are willing to deal away at the first sign of trouble. As the election season heats up, we can only fear for what further compromises will be made for presumed political gain. And unfortunately, too many women will have to put their hope in insurance companies—hired by employers opposed to contraception—to get the healthcare that is not only basic, preventive and safe, but guaranteed to every other American employee who doesn’t have to sneak around their boss to get it. The administration has left women relying on a wing and a prayer that they will be able to access the services they need in a timely manner.
On Thursday, the Pentagon (from the New York Times):
announced that women would be formally permitted in crucial and dangerous jobs closer to the front lines. But it stopped short of officially allowing women to serve in combat.
Santorum was responding to a question on CNN. Bro. Santorum? Guess what emotion I’m feeling right now. Can you? It begins with “anger.” And I don’t want to even see men in combat, but before I go off on a tear, I wonder of which emotions you speak? And whose emotions? Men’s? Women’s?
UPDATE: Thank goodness, we have an explanation. Bro. Santorum is afraid men will try to protect women, and not fulfill their mission. He told The Today Show:
I think men have emotions when [they] see a woman in harm’s way. It’s natural. It’s very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern. I think that’s a concern with all of the militaries.
Women who use birth control, that is. Nevertheless, Pres. Obama has elected to compromise on requiring all employers t0 offer health insurance coverage that includes birth control.
Rep. Maureen Walsh was one of two Republicans to vote in favor of marriage equality in her state. The governor has said she’ll sign the bill into law on Monday.
I haven’t done this in a while because — really — who wants to reach into the mail bag when it’s so often full of snakes? Nevertheless, just to let you know that
a. I am here and
b. I care, the following come from real, life mail, both snail and e-:
You’d better watch your ps and qs [sic] in East Haven. Drive the speed limit, use your turn signals. The police are watching.
Hey, thanks! I would hope East Haven police are watching. That’s their job. But did you know your email address is invalid?
I understand you’re not from Connecticut. Why are you here?
Because I so treasure hearing from you? If I move back to Missouri, do you promise to write?
I wonder if we went to high school together? Newington? Class of ’74? Is that your married name?
Sorry. Webb City High School, class of ’77. And this is my birth name.
But you keep digging and you just might find something like this, from an 88-year old woman who has become a pen pal and whose every letter contains at least one gem like:
It is good to have a time of quiet each day in some peaceful, pleasant place. You come away renewed and refreshed. Trust you will forgive your friend who loves to tell people what they should do! At least I don’t charge!
Thanks, Dorothy. Your value is far above rubies.
You can read more here.
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
-- ADVERTISEMENT --