Free Birth Control Religious Exemption Coverage Sparks Controversy

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration issued official guidelines Monday that will force nearly all health insurance plans to fully cover the cost of birth control, but the mandate makes an exception for religious organizations that morally oppose contraception. That exemption has frustrated some members of both the Catholic and pro-choice communities because it could force thousands of women employed by religious institutions to continue to pay out of pocket for their birth control.

“The multi-billion dollar Catholic health care industry has a lot of influence with this administration, influence that it has now used to allow religious institutions to ride roughshod over the needs of their workers," said Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien in a statement. "Not only that, it ignores the consciences of those who decide that to use a modern method of family planning is what is best for them and their families."

The conservative Family Research Council, by contrast, was disappointed with the conscience clause, calling it a "fig leaf" of protection for religious organizations because it may not be interpreted to protect them all.

Birth control is widely used, even among religious women in America. According to a 2011 Guttmacher study, 98 percent of Catholic women who have had sex have used some form of contraception, despite the Catholic clergy's strong opposition to it. Moreover, 68 percent of Catholic women and 74 percent of evangelical Christians said they had used a "highly effective method" of contraception, such as birth control pills or intra-uterine devices.

The new health insurance guidelines, which the Health Department issued at the strong recommendation of a non-partisan panel of experts at the Institute of Medicine, will force insurers to pay for a number of women's preventative health services, including HIV screenings, breast pumps and counseling on domestic violence, as soon as January 2013.

Tait Sye, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, said the organization is pleased with the overall victory for women's health, but "disappointed" that the Health Department is considering proposals that would leave some women out of the birth control coverage.

"Planned Parenthood will continue to work hard to ensure that all women, regardless of their employer or insurer, have access to the health care they need," he said, "including affordable birth control."

Comments

[Coffee4Me]

10:55 PM on 08/19/2011

This bs is getting on my nerves. Birth control pills are used for much more than pregnancy protection. They are often prescribed to treat medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis, menstruation-related anemia painful menstruation, and mild or moderate acne. It is also used to induce menstruation on a regular schedule for women bothered by irregular menstrual cycles or disorders where there is dysfunctional uterine bleeding. It also protects against breast growth that is not cancer, reduces the risks of certain cancers, ectopic pregnancy, and menopause-related pain during sex. None of these disorders discriminate against religion, and religion should not dictate whether a woman a woman should be able to be treated for them, without spending more than they already spend on their premiums. Religious organizations already get tax exemptions, but healthcare exemptions? Come on. Viagra is covered under alot of plans, and that pill is for ego protection, not heath protection.

[nicoleamurray]

10:32 AM on 08/07/2011

There should be no exemption because: The employees of religious organizations who don't "believe" in birth control won't use it anyway, so the organization won't have to pay. Those employees who DO want it won't be punished for working for an organization that won't provide it. Giving people choice? WHAT A CONCEPT!!!!!

[LeRoy Minut]

06:41 AM on 08/06/2011

Does anyone really believe that the Women on Welfare that have 2 or 3 children out of wedlock all of a sudden will start using contraceptives when they haven't done so in the past? If you believe that I happen to have a bridge for sale cheap!

[brynk336]

06:00 PM on 08/02/2011

This is ridiculous. Obviously most religious and non-religious women want this--quit letting a bunch of old "celibate" men in Rome make decisions about what goes on in your uterus. I can tell you, if I worked for one of these institutions, I would be organizing a massive sick out as we speak for the day this goes into effect. Don't let them get away with it!

[Lady1genius]

03:57 PM on 08/03/2011

"They no playa da game, they no maka da rules."

[logansteele1]

10:16 PM on 08/04/2011

But they do "playa da game" and they can make the rules. THEY, as the employers are paying the bulk of the premium cost of the insurance. If women want to make their own decisions I say more power to them. But put your money where your choices are.

[StormCarRain]

11:25 PM on 08/26/2011

If they want to decide what they use their Uterus for, then they can pay for their own health care too.

[chilamoo]

05:48 PM on 08/02/2011

This is a little off the subject, but I often find it strange that some people who are too religious for birth control somehow find it acceptable to engage in premarital relations. Just a thought.

[girldog]

06:23 PM on 08/02/2011

"find it acceptable to engage in premarital relations"

Married women need birth control too.

[Lady1genius]

03:58 PM on 08/03/2011

Another poster who thinks all married women want to be mothers.

[logansteele1]

10:19 PM on 08/04/2011

No woman has to be a mother. But if she doesn't want to be one, why should I have to pay for her choice not to? And let's be clear here. I think NOT wanting to be a mother is fine. I think wanting an HIV test is fine. I think having a colonoscopy is fine. But not on my dime. I'll pay for mine...you pay for yours.

[driverstest]

04:02 PM on 08/02/2011

This mentally that something is "free" is what is dragging this country down. The copays will be paid by all those who pay premiums for their health care. As a small business owner, I see the reality of the "free" items. Our healthcare premiums have gone up 48% for the next year. It will cost us $2000 a month for family converage. Guarantee that our premiums are paying for "free" healthcare. If birth control is now covered at no charge to all, then certainly we no longer need to fund abortions since there will be no unwanted pregnancies. Too few paying for too many who sit on the sidelines and preach that we all need to share in the sacrifices. Enough already!

[goatini]

06:49 PM on 08/02/2011

Yeah, well, I've co-paid, in effect, for many, many, many pregnancies and births of others insured under my various plans over the years. Pregnancies and births that cost FAR more than any medical treatment I've received under one of those plans. But you know what? I'm OKAY about that. Because that's what a risk pool is all about.

I can assure you that BC is *not* what will cause your premiums to go up. Pregnancy and birth are far, far more expensive.

[chriss0114]

09:31 AM on 08/03/2011

F&F'd for a great reality check!!

[logansteele1]

10:23 PM on 08/04/2011

I have to agree. Nothing is free. Someone pays, and that is usually the one with the money. And often the one with the money isn't necessarily rich, just one who thinks they need to pay the bills first. Responsible middle class Americans will pay for the birth control and gestational diabetes tests and HIV tests. Everyday average Main St. people. There really aren't that many rich people out there and after today, even less than before. I've had enough too.

[beaba61987]

03:36 PM on 08/02/2011

Okay regardless of religious beliefs I am sure we can all agree that people are going to be people and engage in sexual activites. Therefore all of the women in this country deserve to have the same access to various medical methods that protect them whether they want it, don't want it, think God wouldn't approve, think they'll never need it or aren't sure. Whatever the situation is it should be available to everyone in an equal manner end of story.

[logansteele1]

05:59 PM on 08/05/2011

I'm following you on this, but I'm having difficulty understanding how "access" to birth control is a health care issue requiring that all insurance companies pay 100% of all costs associated with family planning for all women.

Any woman can see a doctor, discuss her choices and initiate contraception. There is no grand barrier because most poor women already have financial options and many have programs to provide transportation to the doctor.

When did free birth control become a necessary freebie? Wouldn't it make more sense for insurance companies to waive all out of pocket costs for chemotherapy? That at least correlates to a real, and very, very expensive medical problem, not a lifestyle choice.

[nicoleamurray]

10:36 AM on 08/07/2011

The most effective form of BC is the IUD. Guess how much one of those costs? Even with a steady income, I literally do not have the budget for a $500 device. Hormonal options make me insane, so I'm stuck with condoms which are awful for a multitude of reasons. Free IUD? I'll take it.

[beaba61987]

06:11 AM on 08/18/2011

Well this article is addressing an exemption that applies only to women of a particular religion. Now the overall issue of health care covering all contraceptive costs for all women is a different issue completely. I just think that it is off to alter the policies based on religion, women are women regardless of their faith we should all have the same options available (stipulations of those options aside).

[Scent]

02:12 PM on 08/02/2011

So the catholic church is above having its criminals prosceuted but still can influence the laws of this land? - I know of course that criminals have always exerted influence on the law makers. But this is so vile it makes me sick.

[Donald Scott]

02:52 PM on 08/02/2011

Great news, you can become a protestant and find a church believing other than a catholic's beliefs. The catholic church has implemented and deleted changes since existence. Such as, you will no longer be a catholic if you marry a protestant (happened in our marriage), your children are required to be catholics, fish on Fridays (even the military served fish on Fridays until changed). There are churchs that believe in preaching the word of God instead of controlling your life.

[Max Load]

02:01 PM on 08/02/2011

Sadly, it's like taxes. Loopholes only exist for those rich enough to have pull.

[hockubs]

01:55 PM on 08/02/2011

""Not only that, it ignores the consciences of those who decide that to use a modern method of family planning is what is best for them and their families.""

This makes no sense. They're not forcing women to get birth control.

[been2there]

01:19 AM on 08/03/2011

No, they are making it harder, which is just as wrong.

[ScarlettMocha]

01:36 PM on 08/02/2011

Another bad Obama bill. Just go ahead and give them they dam keys whydon'tcha?

[SouthpawSass]

01:32 PM on 08/02/2011

Do employers, whether religious or not, choose the healthcare plans for their companies? If so, is a birth control provisions optional? Is government mandating birth control coverage to all corporations?

[Lady1genius]

04:02 PM on 08/03/2011

Yes... and SO WHAT?

[SouthpawSass]

06:28 PM on 08/03/2011

Is it your view that it's perfectly okay for a small business to take on an added expense in this economy because an employee wants to use birth control? What if it's a small business that can't afford it? What if it's a family owned business that doesn't believe in birth control? Since an employer pays into an employees health care coverage, who then pays the additional expense? If not the employee, then the employer is to pay because you know the insurance company will pass down the costs to someone.

[BVictor1]

01:31 PM on 08/02/2011

""Not only that, it ignores the consciences of those who decide that to use a modern method of family planning is what is best for them and their families.""

The quick withdrawal method doesn't always work.

[Lady1genius]

04:03 PM on 08/03/2011

They have a name for people who use the withdrawl method, and the rythym method... PARENTS.

[pjlowry]

01:31 PM on 08/02/2011

If the Church is going to flex this kind of political muscle, then it's time to start taxing them for sticking their nose in Washington. This is a clear violation of their excemption...

[SouthpawSass]

01:37 PM on 08/02/2011

The question is since an employer contributes to an employees health care, don't you think the employer has a right to choose the coverage for its company? If not, then does the government have the authority over a company in what it must pay for?

[glendadover]

01:45 PM on 08/02/2011

Not all employers contribute to employees health care but they do try to find a reasonable group Health Ins.

[squirrely girl]

02:05 PM on 08/02/2011

Let me reframe this concept... if an employer is racist and doesn't want to cover treatments for Sickle Cell Anemia, should the employer be allowed to do so?

[Donald Scott]

02:56 PM on 08/02/2011

Problem is that just because the catholic church is believing this does not mean all churchs believe in controlling your life. A general in the army making a decision does not apply to a member in the navy (thank goodness). But, the president making a decision for the military dicates otherwise (great time for homosexuals to join up before changed again).

[Bullitt08]

01:26 PM on 08/02/2011

The Catholic Church loves the poor and wants as many poor as possible.