This is outrageous. HHS has issued its final ruling on exemptions from contraceptive coverage for health plans even in the face of religious obejctions. Too bad.
And in what passes for compromise for the lunatic secular left currently running the country, they will give religious groups an extra year to comply if you can PROVE you are really a religious group (which is difficult to impossible with these people), but comply you will.
This is outrageous. We must demand that the next President/Congress reverse this on day 1.
A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim final rule that will require most health insurance plans to cover preventive services for women including recommended contraceptive services without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductible. The rule allows certain non-profit religious employers that offer insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraceptive services. Today the department is announcing that the final rule on preventive health services will ensure that women with health insurance coverage will have access to the full range of the Institute of Medicine’s recommended preventive services, including all FDA -approved forms of contraception. Women will not have to forego these services because of expensive co-pays or deductibles, or because an insurance plan doesn’t include contraceptive services. This rule is consistent with the laws in a majority of states which already require contraception coverage in health plans, and includes the exemption in the interim final rule allowing certain religious organizations not to provide contraception coverage. Beginning August 1, 2012, most new and renewed health plans will be required to cover these services without cost sharing for women across the country.
After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.
Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.
This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty. I believe this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services. The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good. And this final rule will have no impact on the protections that existing conscience laws and regulations give to health care providers.
Religious liberty means do what we say in one year? These people are monsters!!
Update from Matt: hey, remember when Obama was honored at Notre Dame and said:
Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women.”
I guess he wasn’t really telling the truth, huh? Looks like Notre Dame got played.
January 20, 2012 at 10:16 pm
Close every Catholic hospital.
It's the only option other than capitulation.
January 20, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Cleopatra used alligator dung and lemon peels as a contraceptive. Cleopatra also befriended an asp. Alligator dung and lemon peels is still safer than the pill. If HHS send out leaflets offering this good advice…
January 20, 2012 at 10:33 pm
I think a bunch of NFP users ought to demand free charts, thermometers, appointments with NFP counselors, etc. from their *secular* employers' health coverage under the rule that women are entitled to the "full range" of these "services."
That is actually a great idea. If these things aren't covered, why not? Why don't you start a movement to have them covered?
January 20, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Jane Roe, Norma McCorvey endorsed Ron Paul.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2008/01/22/4433288-jane-roe-endorses-paul
January 20, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Taxation without representation. Good Catholics do not use contraception and they ought not be taxed to pay for another's.
January 21, 2012 at 12:17 am
Maybe instead of giving speeches about freedom in the U.S., the Pope will shepherd some non-Catholics out of the "Catholic" church…
January 21, 2012 at 12:25 am
Don't expect it to get better if (big IF there) Obama is voted out. The "go along to get along" mentality is deeply rooted in the GOP, remember how Michael Steele spoke of a "big tent"? How peculiar is it that the most prolife candidates that had a chance of being elected (that rules out Ron Paul & Rick Santorum) have been smeared & slimed to the point of leaving the race? If you think our problems will go away after 1/20/13 you need your meds checked.
January 21, 2012 at 12:30 am
Why is everyone so concerned with the rights of religious institutions? How come I haven't heard any outcry over the abridging of the religious rights of individuals? I am a Catholic, and the use of birth control is against my religion. How can the government force me to pay for it without destroying my right to religious freedom?
January 21, 2012 at 4:32 am
And, Katie O., what about Catholic small business owners while we're at it? It sucks all around– for individuals, businesses and charitable agencies.
January 21, 2012 at 4:39 am
I don't understand why anyone is surprised by this. Hasn't anyone been paying attention to how this administration deals with people? Imperious contempt for the constitution, federal statutes, public opinion, the truth and even the administration's own supporters. First they came for the bondholders, ignoring federal bankruptcy law. But that was years ago and nobody cared about them.
January 21, 2012 at 5:53 am
"Close every Catholic hospital.
It's the only option other than capitulation."-Nick
At the very least, dear bishops, insist that every Catholic institution* in your diocese submit plans describing how it will (a) conform to church teaching in this matter and (b) wind up its affairs and close in the event it cannot.
*not just hospitals, everything!
January 21, 2012 at 6:02 am
"Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families."
Please clarify…-Blackrep
It's a kind of mini death panel.
January 21, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Does anyone know if this decision applies to crisis pregnancy centers, e.g., will the Birthright center located on our church's property be forced to comply?
January 21, 2012 at 1:51 pm
What she meant to say was, "we need the same support from Catholics that we got in 2008 in order to win this year, so here is the rationale to satisfy your conscience when you enter the voting booth."
January 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that the state cannot, does not, have the authority to dictate to the church its hiring practices that will eventually lead to women priests, against the (FREE) will of the Catholic Church's Founder, Jesus Christ. Will the Supreme Court Justices now decide that forcing Catholic Church organizations, institutions, and Catholic persons, followers of Jesus Christ, into doing violence to the laws of nature and nature’s God (The Declaration of Independence) against the (FREE) will of the Catholic Church’s Founder, the PERSON of Jesus Christ? It behooves the Justices to seek Justice and “render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s”, for God gives the FREEDOM that the state is constituted to defend, enforce and bring to birth. FREEDOM.
January 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Outrageous is right.I am an RN at a Catholic hospital. I work at a Catholic hospital because I like the compassionate care this hospital is known for. Because I wouldn't be pressured to assist in abortions. Don't think that's part of this whole fiasco? Now what? And where is the coverage on Fox news? All I see is coverage of the Republican caucuses, the cruise ship disaster and the pipeline battle. It's been done under the radar – the only article in a newspaper I've seen so far is in a U.K. newspaper. I'm angry. Wake up America!
January 21, 2012 at 3:24 pm
The only real alternative the Church has here is to disregard the ruling and let the government sue. To do less would compromise the Church's integrity. PLUS I am pretty sure the Government would not relish the idea of facing the Church in court over this matter, particularly in light of the most recent Supreme Court ruling of 2 weeks ago. And let's not even talk about how the majority of US citizens–you know, those who "cling to their Bibles and their guns"–would react. I think Sebillius and her boss may have skated uncomfortably close to the thin ice on this one.
Fr. Martin Farrell, op
Canada
January 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm
Did you catch this story in today's WSJ (The Mounting Tragedy of Missing Baby Girls). We are on a slippery slope headed in this direction: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204555904577166820193811222.html?mod=lifestyle_newsreel
January 21, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Katie O and Margaret: Hear, hear! Why are we fighting for an exception for religious entities? Why should ANY private company have to pay for insurance that the owners consider immoral? As a newlywed, long before I was a practicing Catholic, I worked for a company that did not cover contraception. I was shocked. I thought that as a married woman I was entitled to contraceptive pills. That was a big lesson for me — that just because I wanted that, I was not ENTITLED to it. If I wanted it I had to pay for it. It was not the company owner's responsibility to get me whatever I wanted. Long before I shared those beliefs (and the owners were NOT Catholic) I learned to respect that people paying for my insurance believed in paying only to cover my illnesses and, yes, my pregnancy. I came to understand that this was their right, no matter what I thought about it.
January 21, 2012 at 7:40 pm
To quote Rick up there, "Ethical my ass!" You said it.
To quote Mary De Voe, "Alligator dung". That is what this all is. A giant steaming heap of alligator dung.
Make sure you don't speak ill of this, lest you be branded a terrorist and then subject to a drone strike.
Isn't Sebelius a Catholic? Love how that just shines through.