Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
It appears that the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Republicans are not happy with the change that President Obama made to the health care contraceptive coverage requirement for religious employers. The President’s announcement about the change yesterday initially met with a “reserved response” from the bishops who said it was a 
“first step in the right direction.” Hours later, however, the bishops issued a statement “blasting the plan.” Along with others, the bishops are calling for Congressional legislation that would reverse the contraceptive policy.
In a blog post earlier today, Judy Waxman, who is Vice President for Health and Reproductive Right at the National Women’s Law Center, expressed her concern about some of the proposed legislation. Waxman wrote that “opponents of birth control in Congress are still focused on taking away access to contraception introducing extreme legislation that threatens health across the board. The pieces of legislation range from allowing any employer, regardless of whether it is a religious entity, to deny coverage of contraception to giving employers the right to refuse coverage of any health care service they find religiously or morally objectionable.”
Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress echoed Waxman’s concern. He reported that Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, is expected to introduce an amendment next week “that would permit any employer or insurance plan to exclude any health service, no matter how essential, from coverage if they morally object to it.
Excerpt from Blunt’s proposed amendment:
(6) RESPECTING RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE WITH REGARD TO SPECIFIC ITEMS OR SERVICES —
“(A) FOR HEALTH PLANS. — A health plan shall not be considered to have failed to provide the essential health benefits package described in subsection (a) (or preventive health services described in section 2713 of the Public Health Services Act), to fail to be a qualified health plan, or to fail to fulfill any other requirement under this title on the basis that it declines to provide coverage of specific items or services because —
“(i) providing coverage (or, in the case of a sponsor of a group health plan, paying for coverage) of such specific items or services is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the sponsor, issuer, or other entity offering the plan; or
“(ii) such coverage (in the case of individual coverage) is contrary to the religious beliefs or moral convictions of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
Waxman also wrote the following in her post:
They are playing politics with women’s health – and it would hurt everyone. Tell your Senators to reject all extreme legislation that would take away women’s access to birth control without a co-pay, and other needed health care.
What would happen if some of these bills became law?
- Any employer could offer a plan that does not cover maternity care for unmarried women in its plan, claiming that such coverage violates its belief that sex and procreation are permissible only within the marital relationship. (Amendment No. 1520 sponsored by Senator Blunt, R-MO, also known as the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)
- Any corporation whose CEO opposes contraception based on his “moral convictions” could deny all coverage of contraception or any other service to the company’s employees. Even more disturbing, a CEO’s view of “morality” could potentially include concern for the cost of a particular benefit. (S. 2092, also known as “The Manchin-Rubio Bill” and the “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)
- Any employer who objects to coverage of vaccines for children could deny this coverage to all employees. (The “Blunt Amendment”/H.R. 1179)
Do you agree with Waxman that some people are playing politics with women’s health? Do you think our Senators should be called upon to reject–what Waxman calls–“extreme” legislation?
**********
I’d like to note that birth control pills can be used to treat some medical conditions—including endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, adenomyosis, dysmenorrhea, and acne. Birth control pills can also lower a woman’s risk of getting ovarian cancer—as well as some other kinds of cancers—if she takes the pills for more than five years.
FYI: Last December, Alice Park penned an article for Time’s Healthland titled Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer?
Park wrote:
Kara Britt at Monash University and Roger Short of the University of Melbourne, writing in the journal Lancet, argue that the scientific evidence is strong enough to consider whether nuns, who do not bear children — a lifestyle that puts them at higher risk of certain reproductive cancers — could be protected by taking the birth control pill.
The article in the Lancet claimed that Roman Catholic nuns pay a “terrible price for their chastity” because not having children puts them at a higher risk of growing breast, ovarian and, uterine tumors.
SOURCES
GOP Ups The Ante, Introduces Legislation To Allow Any Employer To Deny Any Preventive Health Service (ThinkProgress)
Roy Blunt Amendment (ThinkProgress)
Protect Women’s Health: Tell Your Senators to Reject Extreme Legislation (National Women’s Law Center)
Blunt expected to intro bill on contraception coverage (St. Louis Business Journal)
Senator Blunt’s Response To President Obama’s Remarks On HHS Mandate
GOP Sen. Roy Blunt to introduce bill allowing employers to deny coverage for any health service (Daily Kos)
Groups rail against contraceptive coverage ‘mandate’ despite rule change (My Fox Philly)
Bishops Renew Call to Legislative Action on Religious Liberty (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)
Should Nuns Take the Pill to Prevent Cancer? (Time/Heathland)
Nuns On Birth Control? Experts Say The Pill May Reduce Health Risks Posed By Chaste Lifestyle (Huffington Post)
Nuns should go on the Pill, says Lancet study: Nuns should go on the Pill to reduce their chances of developing cancer, researchers say (The Telegraph)
Combined oral contraceptive pill (Wkipedia)
Re Elaine @ 6:06 – the Rubio connection
Bad waking dream thought – 2016: Jeb and Mario. A real shot at grabbing the rising Hispanic demographic. Disadvantage: geographical distribution.
Not a pretty thought.
Will someone explain the details of the rhtym method of sex resulting in no pregnancy. When we were in high school we tried rhtym and blues and abstaining makes the heart grow fonder and several other things but most of the girls who got knocked up depended upon Catholic dogma. I guess the hoopla this week is to take the attention off of the parishes which might perish because of lawsuits over child raping priests. I think that there should be a Council of Altar Boys to counter veil the Council of Bis-hops. What the priests hop is a matter of public concern. They do espouse a birth policy akin to that practiced by rabbits.
Just a dog talkin here. But inquiring dogs need to know.
The topic previously today was about Muslims and the Prince who bought Twitter and now the Tweets are being circumscribed in Saudia Arabia. The tenor of the comments was that Saudia Arabia is Ohhhhh so backward.
So here in the USofA we have a Catholic Church telling people they can not have birth control. Publish or parish. I have rhtym. People accusing our President of shoving condoms down our throats.
Ok folks if you buy into the Catholic Dogma then please do not get a dog for a pal.
I am old enough to remember the 1960 election, during which the Republicans were all in a tither over the possibility of having a Roman Catholic elected to the Presidency. (Gasp! Oh, the horror!) Why, the Pope himself would have an office in the White House, they cried, and the Catholic Church would run the country. Kennedy practically had to sign a Norquistian pledge to declare that such would not be the case, that he would be the President of ALL Americans.
And now, 13 election cycles later, the Republicans are demanding that the country be run by the Catholic Church.
(…followed by me burying my face in my hands and shaking my head…)
“Birth control may now be wedge issue against GOP”
Indeed it will be. And it will be a wedge issue that also drags in the religious right. From a political standpoint, quite frankly, it is perfect for the Democrats. “Republicans and the Religious Right Hate Women”
As for Obama’s protestations … yeah, right.
Most of Obama’s “Controversial” Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years
The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.
—By Nick Baumann | Wed Feb. 8, 2012
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
Excerpt:
President Barack Obama’s decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.
Despite the longstanding precedent, “no one screamed” until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.
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—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don’t offer prescription coverage or don’t offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC’s interpretation of the law, you can’t offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.
Marco Rubio’s Plan Could Cut Off Birth Control Coverage for Millions
How the Florida senator—and potential VP pick—aims to use religion to undermine Obama’s health care policy.
—By Nick Baumann | Thu Feb. 9, 2012
http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/rubio-bill-limit-birth-control-access-millions
Excerpt:
A new bill introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a rising conservative star and leading contender for the Republican vice-presidential nomination in 2012, could cut off birth control coverage for millions of women who receive it through their health plans.
Rubio has sold his proposal—introduced January 31 as the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” or S. 2043—as a way to counter President Barack Obama’s controversial rule requiring even religiously-affiliated schools and universities to offer copay-free birth control to their employees. But health care experts say that its implications could be far broader.
If passed, the bill would allow any institution or corporation to cut off birth control coverage simply by citing religious grounds.
The Answer to All of this:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1993-04-27/news/1993117040_1_health-care-people-get-health-health-insurance-system
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2005/october/des-moines-register-separate-health-insurance-from-jobs
The US has made People into Wage Slaves.
I have worked in jobs where I witnessed Worker have to Eat Sh*t that would make Me want to Eat a Bullet, because they were Afraid of Losing Health Coverage for their Family.
It’s All about Employer Leverage on Employees Lives.
Elaine,
I agree that Santorum is off his rocker, but it would be much more fun to see him as the GOP candidate. What a laugher.
I guess then Seventh Day Adventists could refuse to offer any health insurance based on their religious beliefs. Lord help us!
If the Catholic institutions refuse to honor the law and provide contraception to its employees, the Dems should push the notion that their non-profit status should be removed. That should heat up the discussion a bit!!
Birth control may now be wedge issue against GOP
By Greg Sargent
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/birth-control-may-now-be-wedge-issue-against-gop/2012/02/10/gIQAbzVO4Q_blog.html
Excerpt:
At his press conference this morning announcing the new shift in contraception policy, Obama said: “I understand that some folks in Washington may want to treat this as another political wedge issue. But it shouldn’t be.”
The irony is that after this announcement, this very well may become a wedge issue — against Republicans.
That’s because anyone who comes out against the proposal Obama outlined today will be asked a simple question: Are you saying that employers should dictate to female employees whether they should or shouldn’t have access to birth control coverage?
The policy announced today would remove religious institutions from any role in providing coverage for birth control for female employees. The transaction would occur directly between women and insurers. Yet here’s how Senator Orrin Hatch, one of the first to oppose today’s announcement, explains his opposition:
“This is about religious freedom, and anything short of a full exemption is no compromise. …The backlash surrounding the White House’s decision to force religious institutions to act against their beliefs lays that fundamental fact that the President’s health law is unconstitutional to its very core.”
By “full exemption,” is Hatch saying that employers at Catholic hospitals and universities should have the power to dictate to employees that they cannot have any access to contraception coverage? He doesn’t quite say it that way, but it’s unclear how else you would read his statement. And if Dems have their way, officials like Hatch will be pressed to clarify whether this is their position.
Have to head out but I hope Ron Paul wins the Maine Caucus. Paul is on the wrong side of the war on women but I hope he beats Romney in this one.
GOP: Yes to Contraception for Wild Horses, No for Women
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
2/16/2011
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2011/02/16/votes-contraception-wild-horses-women-0
Excerpt:
During a month in which the anti-choice Republican and Tea Party majority in Congress and in many states have made it their priority mission to eliminate access to contraception for women here and abroad, and on the very same day that the House planned to vote to take away birth control for women living in poverty in the US and eliminate funding for international family planning, you will be happy to know that there is at least one group the GOP believes deserves access to contraception.
Wild horses.
Just a little while ago, according to reports from the House floor, a vote was held on an amendment introduced by Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN) to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from holding wild horses in pens and then slaughtering them.
Instead, says Burton, they should pursue “a much less costly and more human option – immunocontraception…”.
It’s saddening to hear Romney, and realize all the Repugnant candidates are the same as he. How does the promise of power produce these.
Of course, when in doubt, they say to themselves: “The ends justify the means.”
.
But as someone said: Is this a distraction from the real issues? Considering how quickly it was fanned into a blaze, it must have been planned ahead. And is one of many such actions palnned to keep Obama et al off balance until November.
This contraception battle is so sixties.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/mitt-romney-wins-cpac-straw-poll?ref=fpa
Swarthmore mom,
I think Santorum is scary–and batsh*t crazy. I’d take Romney over him any day.
Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women
http://pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/
NOTE: Be sure to check out #10.
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).
Elaine, I think the republicans are figuring that out and going for Santorum. He is consistently bad.