There's not a lot we agree on in this country. And yet, there is one topic around which there is practically universal agreement: the right of women to access birth control.
That's right -- 99% of women in the U.S. who have been sexually active have used birth control. It's used by women of every demographic, every geographic location, every income level -- and every religious group.
So does it sound crazy that a small group of religious leaders and tea-party Republicans are fighting to eliminate women's access to birth control?
But that's exactly what's happening. Right now in Washington, D.C., a small but influential group is lobbying the White House to prevent millions of women in America from having equal access to birth control under insurance plans. It seems as though having one of the highest unintended pregnancy rates, not to mention the highest teen pregnancy rate, among the world's most developed countries isn't enough -- we've got to make it even harder for women to access family planning.
The dangerous proposal put forth by this vocal minority tries to take advantage of an unfair exemption crafted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that allows certain religious employers to opt out of the new federal requirement that insurance plans include birth control and other preventive services with no co-pay.
But here's the thing: The HHS definition of "a "religious employer" applies to nonprofit organizations that have instilling religious values as their purpose and whose employees and clients share their religious tenets. In other words, religious institutions such as churches are already exempted.
But these lobbyists are trying to expand this definition to include religiously affiliated colleges, universities, medical schools, hospitals, social service organizations, schools, you name it -- so that these organizations will be able to refuse birth control coverage for their employees as well. This, despite the fact that these institutions in large part neither employ nor serve individuals who share their religious beliefs. In fact, they are open to and serve the public.
The result of such an expansion would be nothing short of tragic for millions of Americans and their families. Nearly 800,000 people work at Catholic hospitals and there are approximately two million students and workers at universities that have a religious affiliation. This expansion would impact all of these individuals -- as well as their dependents, denying them a benefit that finally makes an essential health care service affordable.
An expanded refusal policy for any organization claiming to be "religious" would amount to the single most damaging refusal provision around birth control ever implemented. In fact, it would set a standard as bad as or even worse than the refusal provision that George W. Bush put into place near the end of his administration -- and that President Obama sensibly and swiftly dismantled.
In essence, this harmful and illogical measure would undermine the very purposes of the Affordable Care Act -- eliminating discrimination in health care coverage and making sure all Americans have insurance coverage that meets their basic, preventive health needs. In fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has declared that the exclusion of insurance coverage for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices in an employer health plan that covers prescription drugs is sex discrimination.
An expanded refusal policy not only undermines a fundamental tenet of the Affordable Care Act -- that every person in this country deserves a basic standard of health care coverage -- it could set a devastating precedent that goes way beyond reproductive health care. Down the line, it could open the door to refusals to provide or cover any service that might be deemed to violate religious beliefs -- whether it be a blood transfusion, condoms to prevent HIV transmission, end-of-life care, mental health services, or mere information about health care options.
Just last week, the voters of Mississippi overwhelmingly rejected a proposed "personhood" amendment, in large part because it would have prevented women from being able to access birth control. The American people support birth control, and American women use it. The beauty of birth control is if you don't want or need it, you don't have to use it. That's a decision women can make perfectly well on their own, without the interference of government or religion. And that's something on which we should all be able to agree.
Follow Cecile Richards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cecilerichards
Amy-Jill Levine and Douglas Knight: The Bible and Sexuality
Keep rosaries out of ovaries.
1) Highly regulate all patent medicine prices. We grant them "exclusives" in the form of patents, but then get nothing in return. We do it with electricity by limiting the price a utility charges its customers, so why not?
2) Regulate all prescription drug pricing. One price fits all. If the insurance companies did not demand deep discounts, the "retail" price of drugs would not be nearly as out of control. Let the market drive down the costs, isn't that what a "free market" is all about? Harshly punish profiteers and price fixers - not with a fine, but with a tax that lasts for years on both the current company and its successors and assigns.
3) Require insurance companies to include individuals in the "corporate plan" pricing. No more usurious plans for individuals.
4) Tax health benefits and use that money to reduce the tax brackets of families up to $500K per year. Make it a wash so that increased taxable income = lowered taxable rate.
2) Is the same issue as 1). The market does drive down costs - competitors are developed for successful drugs. The scary part of drug development is that chronic mild disease get drugs aplenty, while severe, acute and preventative drugs get ignored.
3) You can't spread risk over individuals. That's why their prices are higher, as they are for
small group plans. This is effectively covered already by mandating insurance and preventing exclusions for pre-existing conditions.
4) Why? If it's set to be a wash, then what's the point?
As for the pricing scheme, look to Canada. The whole "not really the same" arguement is a total canard.
The inflated pricing schemes of the drug companies include deep discounts for the insurance companies such that without the insurance, many drugs are unaffordable. Those lower prices offer profits aplenty and do not need to be supplemented by raking individuals over the coals.
Group policies DO spread the risk over individuals. These big plans, again, are sustainable for the insurers at the lower prices. The higher cost of individuals is no more than taking advantage of the weaker negotiating position an individual has compared to a large corporation.
The last is the real heart of the matter. Certain groups want to control certain behavior. They claim that if the benefit is tax exempt, "they" are having to subsidize it. Abortion access is the prime example, as is this article's regarding birth control.
If the "benefit" was taxable, those who seek to stop it lose that leverage.
Of course, this is a poor arguement in any case, because there are those morally or religiously opposed to war, death penalty, etc. who don't get to prevent THOSE things from being "funded" (far more directly) by the government.
small group plans"
Depends on your age. If you are young you can buy a individual Blue Cross policy cheaper than the employer policy because the groups plans take in averages.
Personally, it think young and healthy should pay less as they are starting a family, building homes, and getting established. As people get older and have more frequent health needs, they should be established, have the home paid for and kids out of the house and thus able to pay higher premiums.
The point here is about insurance coverage which any participant is paying for... either out of pocket or by a reduction of their salary.
A monthly supply easily costs nearly $50 per month and many can't afford that. When I was younger and poorer I got mine from Planned Parenthood because I couldn't afford the full cost. But you want to cut out PP, too. What's going to happen to this ecomony when the birth rate goes ballistic?
What sort of women VOTE for these people?
Unless you are arguing that men live longer than women
I called the doctor and he said either would do. I'm assuming he thought that we had good insurance with low co-pays when he prescribed a prescription medication for a problem that could be taken care of with an over the counter med. The problems is, he was going to have an insurance company pay $150 for a problem that could be addressed for $25.
If everyone was a cash customer for routine work, the doctors would start prescribing the best mix of low cost and maximum effectiveness. Currently, they are treating for maximum effectiveness with zero regard to cost.
If people don't approve of any one church's position on a certain issue, LET THEM WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE. This is not hard. Religious institutions cannot simply "change" a position of moral principle for the purpose of individuals. Individuals, however, CAN change their employers if they wish.
I support Catholic nonproifts in not being forced to provide, THROUGH THEMSELVES, access to reproductive interventions which they find immoral.