They are not really paying for them though. They are paying employees a package, which includes a salary, pensions, vacations, health insurance. Ultimately, the package is what they pay to the employee. What the employee does with it is up to them, not the employer. So if they are covering insurance, they abide by the same rules as any other employer on what that insurance has to include.

I don't want to have to pay for nuclear weapons. I have a moral objection to them. I know Quakers who have a religious moral objection to them. It doesn't exempt them from taxes though. And those taxes don't stop us from opposing nuclear weapons being held in our name. The Church can continue to opppose birth control and abortions. Most American Catholics will go ahead and use contraception anyway, but at least employees of Catholic organisations will have the same provision as other people. It's not like they are forced to take up offered provision.

If Catholics don't have abortions, use contraception, or sterilize then how could their employee insurance be providing those services? (And let's be clear, we're really only talking about insurance provisions for contraception and sterilization, not abortions)

What is essentially going to happen is that Religious organizations will offer health insurance to its employees but make no contributions towards the premiums. For example, Catholic school teachers will be able to purchase health insurance under a large group policy but then have to pay for 100% of the premiums. This way the Church is offering health insurance so will not be hit with the fine, but won't have to violate the conscience by supporting birth control, etc...

Of course, the next question is does this give the Court another leg upon which to find the ACA unconstitutional as a violation of the first amendment right to free expression.

The Catholic Church has not provided these services, Neal. Are you saying that they should be forced to provide these services against their will? Are you willing to provide a link to the document supporting the Government's right to enforce something unconstitutional?

Yes, I am saying this is unconstitutional.

Danivon,
Your analogy to Nuclear weapons is similar to my convenience store. Does every citizen need to pay for cigarettes because they are legal? It is up to the consumer to make the choice. Does every store need to provide cigarettes? The difference between your analogy and mine is that yours is the Government, which has a responsibility to equally treat and ensure costs are borne by all (not that the last part of that statement occurs). A business must treat it's employees and customers equally. They do not need to treat them the same as another entity does. You cannot say that all gas stations must charge a certain price/unit for gas. That is a monopoly. If the employee does not want the insurance provided, they can choose another that is not paid for by the employer.

You are all for choice aren't you?

Pig:

(And let's be clear, we're really only talking about insurance provisions for contraception ... not abortions)

Oh, I see. Based on the rhetoric I thought this was also about abortions, but it's really about mandating that health insurance policies cover free contraception. I suspect that passes favor with the vast majority of Americans, with all due respect to Brad's moral objection.

Ray Jay,
Moral or not, does it fall in the government's scope of "general welfare" or "Public Health Safety" to have all providers provide contraception? There are many outlets that provide it, often at government expense. (Walgreens, public schools, Planned Parenthood, public health clinics, etc...) Why does every employer need to provide something that is accessible so easily in society?

rickyp wrote:The point behind the current ruling is that religious institutions running organizations that aren't religious in nature.

Hold on there partner. Catholic schools and hospitals are religious in nature. They come from a religious conviction to provide care for the sick and provide education to the young. I say these institutions can decide these matters for themselves. Secular America shouldn't be defining what is "religious in nature" for a religion!

Practical point: A community in the Hudson River Valley (Kingston, NY) had a real issue. For financial reasons the state required the merging of a secular and Catholic hospital, but the new hospital would be the only one in many miles, and if it was Catholic there was a whole host of services they wouldn't provide. They worked out a compromise: they merged, but a new facility was built across the street from the Catholic hospital (complete with a walkway over the street connecting the facilities) where reproductive services were offered. The Catholic's didn't have to provide what they see as immoral services, but the community still had access to these vital services. These are complicated problems that sometimes need complicated solutions.

Ground-breaking Solution in Kingston, NY

In the spring of 2009, the Foxhall Ambulatory Surgery Center opened in the parking lot of Kingston Hospital in Ulster County, NY. This “hospital-beside-a-hospital” is the first separately-incorporated alternative provider of reproductive health care created in a New York State religious-secular hospital merger case. Funded by a $4 million state grant, the Foxhall Center is providing abortions, sterilizations, vasectomies and contraception, following the state-mandated merger of secular Kingston Hospital with Catholic Benedictine Hospital. Post-partum tubal ligations continue to be provided to women delivering babies within Kingston Hospital under terms of the merger. Kingston Hospital also has no restrictions on emergency terminations of pregnancies, such as in the case of premature rupture of membranes or ectopic pregnancies

Ray Jay wrote:Sure ... but there may be intense debates over here on whether abortion should be covered. I could envision its coverage changing depending on which party is in power. That would be way huger than what it is now.

Well, yes your political culture wars are a little overbearing.

Does this issue come up in the UK or other socialized health care systems?

Not much. The NHS is not the only provider of such services. Charities and private healthcare will also provide funding for them, or the actual services themselves. The NHS will not just give out abortions willy-nilly.

Of course, that most other healthcare is covered means that it's not a big ask for people who can afford it to get an abortion themselves, and we don't really have the same kind of religious lobby for insurance coverage rules being set.

Double post oops

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
Your analogy to Nuclear weapons is similar to my convenience store.

No, it is not. Neither is centralised price control the same thing as a 'monopoly'.

My 'analogy' was this - Sometimes there are rules that we don't like. Sometimes governments make rules that conflict with religious morals for particular religions. That doesn't mean that we can automatically apply a religious or moral exemption. I've no idea what that has to do with cigarettes.

However, I notice another error in your 'similar analogy'. In this country, we have consumer protection laws. They apply to all stores and vendors, and so a particular store can't opt out of them and provide a lower standard, even if it does so for all of their customers. I assume it's the same in the USA?

Archduke Russell John wrote:What is essentially going to happen is that Religious organizations will offer health insurance to its employees but make no contributions towards the premiums. For example, Catholic school teachers will be able to purchase health insurance under a large group policy but then have to pay for 100% of the premiums. This way the Church is offering health insurance so will not be hit with the fine, but won't have to violate the conscience by supporting birth control, etc...

And as long as the employees don't lose out financially (say if the employers give them a comensurate raise, and they are able to form a group plan), that would be an acceptable compromise all around, right?

George - Fair enough a catholic school is religious (and educational, by the way) in nature. Fine when it comes to what the school does for it's clients - that's the kids. But the teachers are employees and don't have to be Catholic, so why does the employer's opinion on what's moral trump their choice on what to have covered by their health plans.

bbauska wrote:Ray Jay,
Moral or not, does it fall in the government's scope of "general welfare" or "Public Health Safety" to have all providers provide contraception? There are many outlets that provide it, often at government expense. (Walgreens, public schools, Planned Parenthood, public health clinics, etc...) Why does every employer need to provide something that is accessible so easily in society?

I think that's a broader issue. Here in Mass, if my insurance doesn't include mental health services, new born services, or maternity services (among many other things) I will be fined $2,500. I can buy all of these things privately. I believe that's where the federal rules are heading (although with lower fines). As far as I know, the only exemptions are based on income.

What about Christian Scientists who don't believe in many services but are forced to purchase insurance? Is this particular issue any different than that?

Not much. The NHS is not the only provider of such services. Charities and private healthcare will also provide funding for them, or the actual services themselves. The NHS will not just give out abortions willy-nilly.

I'm not saying that. But my quick research shows that the NHS generally covers abortions. I imagine that would be very controversial on this side of the pond.

Catholic schools and hospitals are religious in nature

All schools teach students a curriculum of history, geography, english etc....
Not all schools teach a curriculum that includes a specific religion.
It is not necessary for a school to be run by a church.
It is not necessary that a church run a school.
Perhaps at one time, the invovlement of the Church was essential in setting up schools and hospitals... But not today. So that if the requirement of making equal access to health insurance is too difficult then perhaps the Church should decide not to involve itself in institutions where religion is not a necessary ingredient?
And by the way, if one group of employees is covered by the standard employee insurance package that doesn't include contraception etc. and another group who want such coverage need to shop elsewhere for the coverage...you don't have equal access. Since its all women in the second group, its really discriminatory.

1. Providing insurance to an employee is compensation to that employee.
2. Catholic hospitals are not being required to perform abortions or vasectomies.
3. There is no requirement for insurances to pay for abortions.
4. Birth control and vasectomies allow more women to avoid abortions.
5. The Catholic faithful should be expected to follow their own edicts; ergo; there's no reason to believe they'd make use of those services. If the Church chooses to hire non-Catholics then they shouldn't be surprised when those people make heretical reproductive choices.

Catholics will put in Obama for a 2nd term, mark my words.

Ray Jay wrote:

Not much. The NHS is not the only provider of such services. Charities and private healthcare will also provide funding for them, or the actual services themselves. The NHS will not just give out abortions willy-nilly.

I'm not saying that. But my quick research shows that the NHS generally covers abortions. I imagine that would be very controversial on this side of the pond.

My first sentence answered the question, and my preceding sentence indicates why. Abortion is not a big issue over here, even with a large proportion of Catholics. The main battle seems to be over the legal limits, and that seems to be a fringe thing with a few nutbar MPs (led by the prime nutbar Nadine Dorries) with a little inspiration from the USA.

Obviously the Catholic Church (and other religious groups) oppose it. But they are not exerting muscle or launching political campaigns. And it would not really have much resonance. I'm not aware of other countries where it is provided and has become an issue. Ireland outlaws abortion and is very lothe to fund contraception, but other than that, I couldn't say.