Birth Control Debate: New Hampshire Lawmakers Pass Repeal Of Contraception Coverage

Saying it would reduce health insurance costs, the Tea Party-controlled New Hampshire House of Representatives passed a bill Wednesday afternoon to repeal the state mandate for employers to provide insurance coverage for contraception.

The House vote tacked an amendment to a seemingly minor bill related to the governance of religious societies to allow for employers to opt-out of the state mandate for contraception coverage if the employer has a religious objection to contraception. The amendment -- which was sponsored by the House's GOP leadership -- is being called a way to reduce health insurance costs for Granite State businesses.

"It is not about whether insurers choose to offer coverage for these services in their policies. This stands up for our religious institutions that have long-held principles and teachings under assault and for their religious liberties," Deputy House Speaker Pamela Tucker (R-Greenland) said in a statement. "Imposing anti-religious regulations on churches achieves no reduction of costs or availability of services, it only serves to please those pushing a political agenda."

"Health insurance costs in New Hampshire are increasing at dramatic rates. New Hampshire businesses are seeing 60 percent premium increases. A considerable portion of those increases can be chalked up to state health insurance mandates implemented during the prior four years' Democrat legislatures and those need to be repealed."

Tucker stressed that the amendment was not to debate the merits of contraception, but rather to discuss the mandate in terms of religious organizations. The wording of the amendment extends to all businesses in the state.

The amendment was not entirely surprising as Republican legislators have been discussing bringing up a way to end the 12-year-old law since last month. The New Hampshire House has been discussing the topic in relation to President Barack Obama's policy to require religious organizations to provide contraception coverage for employees.

During a discussion over a resolution opposing the Obama plan, one GOP lawmaker said that birth control pills cause prostate cancer, while another proposed that married couples practice abstinence unless they are trying to conceive a child.

House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt (R-Salem) said in a statement that the topic came up in the context of the federal health care reform law and a need for the state to promote "religious tolerance."

"This bill has sent a clear message that here in New Hampshire we value our citizens and employers right to religious liberties. New Hampshire has a long and proud history of religious tolerance, and with the passage of this bill we will continue to support and preserve that proud history."

Democrats immediately denounced the measure, noting that it would allow employers to decide medical care. Legislative Democrats were quick to point out that the mandate originally passed in 2000 under a Republican-controlled Legislature with the signature of then Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D).

"My Republicans colleagues are using the banner of religious freedom as a way to mask their blatant attacks on women's health rights," state Rep. Chris Serlin (D-Portsmouth) said in a statement. "No entity or individual faces a restriction of their religious liberty under current insurance law. This bill would prevent women from making their own decisions about contraception."

The bill now moves to the state's GOP-controlled Senate, where it is expected to be considered in April. It is unclear if the Senate will follow the House in passage. Gov. John Lynch (D) is expected to veto the measure. While today's House vote does not have enough votes to override a Lynch veto -- with 59 GOP lawmakers voting against the measure, the House has had history of vote switching to override a Lynch veto.

"I never thought that in 2012 the New Hampshire Legislature would be debating the use of contraceptives. This issue is settled for Granite Staters," House Minority Leader Terie Norelli (D-Portsmouth) said in a statement.

"This out of touch agenda only goes to show that House Republicans are focused like a laser on social issues while jobs and the economy are left on the back burner. Unfortunately, this has been the story at the State House for the past fourteen months. Bills that would be laughed out of any living room in New Hampshire have strong support among Republicans in the State House."

Comments

[Honey Bucket]

12:37 PM on 06/07/2012

Did they include a ban on coverage for Viagra or is the Catholic and Morman churches ok with that drug?

[Janet Frisco]

06:15 AM on 04/21/2012

ALL NEWS
News and Views from American Life League
Remember the mega-charity Planned Parenthood---the one that worries where women will get mammograms without continued government funding and grants from Susan G. Kommen? The one that also says poor women rely on PP for healthcare because no one else is available?
ALL has released a new study that shows that the average salary of a CEO at a Planned Parenthood affiliate is $158, 275 (the top six percent of house hold incomes). Furthermore, 30 of its executives earn over $200,000 (the top 2.67 per cent of household incomes), with 18 being paid over $250,000 (the top 1.5 percent of house-hold incomes).
Say What? That’s right: look no farther for Obama’s one percent elite than his most powerful supporter---$1.1 billion “non-profit” Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood receives almost one-half billion in tax dollars to provide “healthcare, “yet only 10 of 81 PP affiliates have CEO’s who actually have a background in healthcare.
Like we knew, selling abortions as healthcare remains a killer business.

Judie Brown’s ALL NEWS Feb-March 2012

[Joelle Smart]

05:57 PM on 03/19/2012

OMG, you stupid women's libbers are all the same, claiming that we taxpayers should be responsible for your recreation because it MIGHT help with some "medical" conditions. Yet, you blast ED medications thinking that all they do is help elderly men (many of whom are veterans who protected OUR COUNTRY from the Viet Cong!) enjoy the sex they deserve with their wives. DO SOME DAMN RESEARCH! Not only are these heroes entitled to receiving that which the Song of Solomon is so frank about, they also may be taking ED meds for life-threatening conditions! If you feminists would stop combing your underarm hair for a moment and take the time to read up on health news, you would know that Viagra helps to protect against lung problems resulting from high altitudes. I NEED this medication for when I go hunting in Denali National Park; the altitude makes it very difficult for a 75-year-old man to bring home a 150-pound moose head for mounting. Without Viagra, I could get a deadly high altitude pulmonary edema! I know you communist women don't care about murdering babies, but do you really want a WAR VETERAN's blood on your hands?

[CarlyQ]

08:46 AM on 04/25/2012

Whoa, almost had me for a moment. Well done!

[omglookitsagoat]

06:02 PM on 03/11/2012

There are many reasons a large percentage of women NEED birth control for health reasons besides contraception. Most people who oppose birth control coverage or access for religious reasons disapprove of birth control solely because they oppose sex, however, no one seems to be pushing to ban viagra. In fact, more health care insurance providers will provide insurance for viagra than for birth control, even if the birth control is treatment for a serious health problem unrelated to contraception. Obviously, these people care more about a man's erection than a woman's ability to be a healthy productive member of society. It's sickening, sexist an amoral.

[Janet Frisco]

02:47 PM on 04/21/2012

What are the health reasons women NEED birth control besides contraception? I already know they are prescribing it for everything from acne to endometriosis. You have been taken in by the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make more billions than they already do if contraception is mandated. Nobody is opposing sex between married couples here. We just don't want to pay for your recreational sex. I don't believe in viagra either but at least it isn't killing people besides the few who had heart attacks during sexual intercourse who had no business having sex either since they couldn't have erections. You can't fool Mother Nature.
Maybe all these people who think sex is so important but have no idea what the true meaning of the act is should take up knitting or a real sport.

[omglookitsagoat]

06:46 PM on 04/22/2012

I agree that people should not have to pay for other people to have sex. I was not arguing that. I simply do not think the government should be dictating what medication people can and cannot take based on generalized statements. Most of the population does not need birth control for health reasons, but there are individuals who legitimately do. For example, many women have pcos and for some the health effects can be severe. I met one woman who in her early 20s was diagnosed with pcos. She was diabetic, had heart problems, was severely depressed, had attempted suicide twice, doctors suspected she may have had cervical cancer, had life-threatening weight problems despite her efforts to lose weight with diet and excercise, and had a host of other problems. All of those are symptoms of pcos. pcos is known for causing cosmetic problems in women afflicted with it, but I assure you, there are other symptoms associated with it that are much more serious than cosmetic problems. The most effective way to treat pcos is with oral contraceptives because they help greatly when it comes to balancing hormones in women with pcos.

[omglookitsagoat]

06:47 PM on 04/22/2012

I also have pcos. I have had it since puberty. I was diagnosed at 13 and prescribed oral contraceptives as treatment. I do NOT have wild sex orgies and rampant recreational sex. I attempted going off my contraceptive medication once and the effect on my health convinced me more than ever that it is actually a necessity for me to have them. It took me about a year to fully recover from the negative effects of going off for a few months.

[calluna]

01:34 PM on 03/09/2012

So glad I come from the LEFT bank of the Connecticut River.

[LBA7895]

11:36 AM on 03/09/2012

THIS
COUNTRY
IS
RAPIDLY
GOING
CRAZY.....

[LBA7895]

11:33 AM on 03/09/2012

Obama can checkmate all this nonsense, and fix the debate against Obamacare by simply opening up Medicare to anyone who wants to join, for $150 per month per person, and at the same time tell congress to get rid of the so-called employer mandate.
Business would LOVE to drop employee health insurance, and Obama doesn't need congressional approval to open Medicare, since it will become actuarially solvent immediately!

[helmcc814]

07:00 PM on 03/08/2012

Can 't wait til they find out that their health insurance costs will actually INCREASE!

[peacespy]

04:47 PM on 03/08/2012

Why any sane person would support or associate themselves with a group with practices pedophilia and supports and hides those who practice it is beyond my comprehension. Even Dr. Laura has castegated women who support their incest practicing husbands over their own injured child. We as a Nation should REJECT the Catholic church and anyone associated with it.

[Janet Frisco]

06:15 AM on 04/22/2012

A small percentage of priests who engaged in this behavior and the people who covered up do not make the whole Catholic Church bad. We should punish the guilty, but not the entire institution. The Catholic Church is still holy even though some individuals within it are not. We can't control each individual or his actions. If that was the case, we wouldn't associate or support most institutions which have all experienced this problem some in a even greater degree. The society has a problem with sexual impurity and this problem is not limited to the Catholic Church by any means. There is evidence that this acts were perpetrated by homosexuals on mostly young adults not children. The Church has been infiltrated by Communists, Masons and other enemies which seek to destroy The Church from within.

[Carla van der Meer]

03:56 PM on 03/08/2012

On a related note, I've just heard that the abortion ultra sound bill passed in Virginia. The supposed intention of this is to give women a 24 hour "cooling off period". Refresh my memory, but don't a lot of these same people usually oppose 24 hour waiting periods for gun purchases?

[CarlyQ]

07:27 PM on 03/08/2012

That's different. The life of an unborn bunch of cells is FAR more important than any person who actually passes the birth canal.

[Carla van der Meer]

08:19 PM on 03/08/2012

Sarcasm I hope?

[Janet Frisco]

06:23 AM on 04/22/2012

Gun control is not really the issue here. I personally do not oppose a reasonable waiting period to purchase a gun, but I greatly fear that people who don't see any problem in killing a defenseless unborn baby will take away my ability to protect myself from their obvious agression and murderous intent. We obviously need to be able to protect ourselves from those types of individuals. Everyone should be allowed a period to think about what they are doing when it involves the possibility of lethal force. Why would anyone have a problem with a 24 Hour waiting period to allow the person to think about something as permanent as abortion? When I hear opposition to this I realize how radical many proabortion people really are and how they can't claim that they really believe in choice.

[Janet Frisco]

08:02 AM on 04/22/2012

I do not have a problem with a 24 hour waiting period in order to purchase a gun so why do you have a problem with a 24-Hour waiting period for a woman to think about an irreversible act of killing her own child. This is confirmation to me that so many proabortion people are not in favor of choice. Buying a gun does not mean you are necessarily going to kill someone with it, but having an abortion does result in the death of a child so there is really no comparison.

[REMOVETHEVEIL]

03:30 PM on 03/08/2012

"It is not about whether insurers choose to offer coverage for these services in their policies. This stands up for our religious institutions that have long-held principles and teachings under assault and for their religious liberties,

If I am employed by a religious institution that I am not affiliated with then I might not want the "long-held principles and teachings" of that institution to be forced on to me. Its sad to see that as a country we have gone in one big circle, back to the concept of controlling and manipulating another individuals rights. No one can tell a married couple or any couple for that matter to abstain from sex just b/c they are not attempting to pro-create. If our religious freedom is compromised simply b/c we work for a different religious institution then whats to stop this from filtering into all aspects of our lives? I don't understand why these groups of political and religious fanatics have such a hard time obeying the very Biblical law they claim to uphold. Nothing they are doing speaks of tolerance or understanding but it wreaks of self serving control. God gave us a right to make all sorts of choices what makes them think they have the right to take it away? Women should really be paying attention, there might be a time in the near future that you might have to ask your husbands permission to go out in public alone.

[peacespy]

04:49 PM on 03/08/2012

When those religious liberties include molesting children and then protecting the molesters, I draw the line!

[REMOVETHEVEIL]

06:23 PM on 03/08/2012

I don't like the concept either thats why I choose to not be a part of that "faith".

[Neenerpuss]

07:57 PM on 03/13/2012

That's right if your followers don't voluntarily follow you belief system...take way their choice!

[REMOVETHEVEIL]

08:37 PM on 03/13/2012

The first paragraph was an actual quote from the article.

[Janet Frisco]

05:50 AM on 04/26/2012

No one is taking away your choice, we just don't want yours imposed on us. You can still get birth control just don't make us pay for it. If they make our insurance companies pay for it that doesn't change anything. We pay for it in higher premiums.

[BPorter51]

03:11 PM on 03/08/2012

GOP, you are cutting your own throats. This country has bigger fish to fry, and this whole thing is just a distraction.

[FedUpLady]

01:55 PM on 03/08/2012

This has nothing to do with women other than we're the newest targets. This screams of big business buying our politicians. We now have approximately 15 million undocumented people living in this country and my guess is about half of them are women. Most of them cannot afford private health care, etc. The drug companies that make these contraception pills know that they can make billions by not supporting planned parenthood or providing the medication. The huge drug companies have our politicians in their pocket. WAKE UP WOMEN! Look where this is all coming from. This is just another attack on women and the poorer hispanic community for BIG BUCKS!

[Selene Sweck]

05:47 PM on 03/08/2012

You are misunderstanding this law. It is not about insurance companies nor is it about contraception, per say. Prior to this employers were forced to provide contraception for their employees with their insurance regardless of the companies religious beliefs. This was forcing a secular belief upon people of faith. All this will do is remedy this unfair intrusion into our constitutional rights. The lead to this story is simply untrue, go check it out in the New Hampshire bill on line. This is the kind of reporting that is wrong and dishonest.

[MarySkl]

07:51 PM on 03/08/2012

When religious institutions enter into the marketplace and create businesses, they are no longer places of worship, they are businesses. They are bound by the same employment laws that every other business is bound by. A hospital cannot refuse to treat a woman or an African-American or a Hispanic and claim religious freedom. A university cannot fail to admit a student on the basis of some type of discrimination and hide behind the 1st Amendment. A church CAN discriminate. Westboro Baptist Church can refuse to have homosexuals as members of their congregation (not that any would WANT to join that church), but hopefully you get my drift. When you engage in interstate commerce and accept federal or state tax dollars, you must abide by federal/state regulation. That is not my opinion. That is the law.

[Janet Frisco]

05:58 AM on 04/26/2012

No, the drug companies will make billions BY SUPPORTING Planned Parenthood and selling the contraceptions mandated by the government. They will sell more contraception because it's provided "free" to everyone. Don't you realize that the pharmaceutical companies are probably one of the groups that are funding this mandate? They stand to gain billions. Contraception doesn't help women it causes breast cancer and allows them to be sexually exploited and used by men. It's a shame what has happened to women who believe that this equates with freedom.

[glitz]

01:34 PM on 03/08/2012

Does the bill specifically mention women's contraception..doesn't look like it via this post. So if you happen to be a female employer and have a "moral objection" or just feel like it, you can refuse coverage for vasectomies, viagra or any other male forms of contraception...interesting. Apparently these nuts have no idea that their decision will raise insurance..the cost of birth ranges from $5,000 to $20,000 per, without complications or prenatal..or medical costs for the next 17 years. The average cost per month for birth control is $15-20. Which do you think is more practical and cost effective to not only insurance companies, but the country?

[Wrongway62]

01:18 PM on 03/08/2012

If the state wants to reduce the cost to the state for health care quit having any and the price will be gone altogether, the sick, injured and others will still be there they will just die sooner and there would be no health insurance or health care costs. Lets just get to the bottom line.

[peacespy]

04:51 PM on 03/08/2012

Exactly! But I bet the Health Care FOR-PROFIT Insurance companies don't ACTUALLY want to kill the Goose --- they just want those golden eggs to keep on a coming!