February 10, 201214 yr AP is reporting that Obama is expected to make an announcement today changing HHS ruling. http://nky.cincinnati.com/article/AB/20120210/NEWS0108/120210007/-Obama-change-birth-control-rule?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Looks like the Catholic Church's political move worked...
February 10, 201214 yr White House Mulling Compromise I feel this is a pretty fair compromise if it is in fact what ends up being done.
February 10, 201214 yr Author Interesting survey regarding birth control and this particular DHS ruling. Cited: 98% of sexually active Catholics use some form of birth control 58% (highest among any religion) support the DHS ruling http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE So we have two issues here: concept of govt forcing a religious group to provide certain types of coverage to its employees AND the fact that the Catholics are not in step with the church leaders.
February 10, 201214 yr Interesting survey regarding birth control and this particular DHS ruling. Cited: 98% of sexually active Catholics use some form of birth control 58% (highest among any religion) support the DHS ruling http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE So we have two issues here: concept of govt forcing a religious group to provide certain types of coverage to its employees AND the fact that the Catholics are not in step with the church leaders. What various forms are counted as birth control? I'm not saying I doubt the numbers because I'm almost certain they're accurate. But even the "church-approved" rhythm method is itself a form of birth control, albeit a natural one. Are we talking specifically about artificial contraception here?
February 10, 201214 yr White House Mulling Compromise I feel this is a pretty fair compromise if it is in fact what ends up being done. Not going to work. "Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions." I have two problems with it. 1) Now, what right does the Federal Government have to tell a company they have to provide something at no charge and 2) Does anyone REALLY believe that the insurance companies are not going to pass that cost on to the organizations in some way or another? As All Tell asked in another thread. Why this issue above others?
February 10, 201214 yr Author Not going to work. "Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions." I have two problems with it. 1) Now, what right does the Federal Government have to tell a company they have to provide something at no charge and 2) Does anyone REALLY believe that the insurance companies are not going to pass that cost on to the organizations in some way or another? As All Tell asked in another thread. Why this issue above others? Sounds like this DHS ruling only adds to what the EEOC put in place in 2000. http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law
February 10, 201214 yr Sounds like this DHS ruling only adds to what the EEOC put in place in 2000. http://motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/controversial-obama-birth-control-rule-already-law Not that it matters but apparently it has not been widely enforced and it's not clear that the insurance companies are supposed to provide it at no cost. Again, why this issue over others?
February 11, 201214 yr Not that it matters but apparently it has not been widely enforced and it's not clear that the insurance companies are supposed to provide it at no cost. Again, why this issue over others? That is a great question.
February 11, 201214 yr Not going to work. "Under the new plan, religiously affiliated universities and hospitals will not be forced to offer contraception coverage to their employees. Insurers will be required, however, to offer complete coverage free of charge to any women who work at such institutions." I have two problems with it. 1) Now, what right does the Federal Government have to tell a company they have to provide something at no charge and 2) Does anyone REALLY believe that the insurance companies are not going to pass that cost on to the organizations in some way or another? I heard a soundbite earlier today that said the insurance companies were on board with this as contraception saves them money. I have no idea how true that is, but I thought it was worth mentioning and maybe someone can provide something more concrete to support/dispute it.
February 11, 201214 yr I heard a soundbite earlier today that said the insurance companies were on board with this as contraception saves them money. I have no idea how true that is, but I thought it was worth mentioning and maybe someone can provide something more concrete to support/dispute it. I can understand that and If that's the case then it's a workable solution as long as the costs aren't somehow being passed along to the organizaations that are opposed to it.
February 11, 201214 yr Interesting survey regarding birth control and this particular DHS ruling. Cited: 98% of sexually active Catholics use some form of birth control 58% (highest among any religion) support the DHS ruling http://www.freep.com/article/20120208/NEWS07/120208008/Survey-Majority-of-Catholics-support-including-birth-control-in-health-care-plans?odyssey=tab%7Cmostpopular%7Ctext%7CFRONTPAGE So we have two issues here: concept of govt forcing a religious group to provide certain types of coverage to its employees AND the fact that the Catholics are not in step with the church leaders. So what? The church can't just change it's view on every issue just because it's members aren't always in step with the church leaders.
February 11, 201214 yr Author So what? The church can't just change it's view on every issue just because it's members aren't always in step with the church leaders. I'm not saying they should change anything. I'm saying this issue isn't as big of an issue to Catholics in the pews as it is to the Church hierarchy.
February 11, 201214 yr I'm not saying they should change anything. I'm saying this issue isn't as big of an issue to Catholics in the pews as it is to the Church hierarchy.That may be very true, but it doesn't mean they should sit by and let it happen. They have every right to fight this.
February 11, 201214 yr Author That may be very true, but it doesn't mean they should sit by and let it happen. They have every right to fight this. No argument from me on their rights.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.