If the Susan G. Komen foundation board can reverse its tone-deaf decision to pull grant funding from Planned Parenthood, then the Obama administration can say “oops, we goofed” and rethink its decision mandating religious organizations include contraception in their employee insurance plans.
I think health insurance plans — public and private — should cover contraception. They didn’t “back in my day.” I am uneasy with this government vs. religion mandate.
You wanted “the pill,” you scrimped on the grocery money to buy it. Ditto with surgeries, though there was that oddity in which vasectomies were covered, but not tubal ligation. (Always, always, the guys ….) These days, most plans pick up the tab, minus, of course, the obligatory co-pays and deductibles.
I think we walk a First Amendment tightrope, though, when the government tells religious organizations historically and theologically opposed to contraception that they have to include contraception (what’s next? Abortion?) in their insurance plans.
So, when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius rolled out only a very narrow exception — Catholic organizations that employ mostly Catholics can skip the contraception mandate — the battle was engaged. Because, that teensy exception meant Catholic universities, for instance, had to provide contraception in their insurance plans.
No one is mandating employees avail themselves of contraception, simply that it be included for those who choose to use. Understandably, the Catholic Church is on the pulpit against the mandate and reactions nationally have been — perhaps — surprising, as the mainstream media does two things: disagrees with the mandate or calls for a “re-think.”
The Kaiser Foundation is collating information and reactions at its website.
I started this post counting myself as a “disagree with the mandate,” but I’m going to conclude it as a “re-think” that includes far broader access to exemptions.
I find the mandate distasteful because it is heavy-handed. And, yet I can’t bring myself to say do away with it. Because, where does the line get drawn? Exemptions for any Catholic organization — including the ones that get state and federal funding? Exemptions for any Catholic hospital — including the one created in Rockford if OSF-St. Francis and Rockford Health System merge?
Although religious organizations may discriminate in favor of hiring those of their own faith, these days, doing so isn’t going to fill all those jobs on school and college campuses or in health care. So, church-affiliated businesses reach into wider workforce and customer bases and as they do, the faith-based employee and customer pool no longer shares similar religious values.
The Obama administration narrowly defined the exemptions to make it easier to implement the mandate nationwide. That makes sense; it reduces the “if this, then this” slippery slope of who qualifies for which sliver of what slice of which exception. Angels dancing on pinheads would be simple in contrast.
But, in drawing such a fine line distinction, the administration cut it too close. Time to say “oops, we goofed” and more broadly define those exemptions.
I’d have to disagree with you. In fact, I think it should be made clear that a religious organization can either employ only people who share it’s religious beliefs, or comply with the national rules that other organizations must comply with. In other words, make the lines sharper and narrower.
So, the organizations need to make a choice: either the religious basis of the organization is so important that no one without the same religion should be hired, or it’s not that important and people of other faiths can be hired. If that’s the case, then those employees should have access to the same healthcare services they would get at any other place of business.
Well what about treatment for TB? If the Catholic Church denies evolution would TB be treated like it was before antibiotics and not as the multiple-drug-resistant strain that it has evolved into?
What about a Christian Scientist university- could they have a health plan that denies surgery to everyone regardless of the need because they don’t believe in it?
Could a Jewish university have a health plan that only covers mechanical heart valve replacements and not porcine valves because they’re not kosher?
Could a Mormon university have a health plan that doesn’t cover any medication that contains alcohol?
The logical extension is that each will only get employees that are willing to live according to the wishes of that church and that is a form of discrimination. The law has to be written so that everyone is equal and so that no particular faith gets special treatment.
Having contraception available to Catholics doesn’t mean they have to use it. Is the Pope afraid his sheep will stray? Heck, I understand many wise Catholics already use protection, so does it make a big difference if it’s included in their health plan?
Linda: A nicely crafted opinion, thank you. But I respectfully disagree with your question, “[W]here does the line get drawn?” There shouldn’t even be a line. Government has no legitimate role in the design of healthcare insurance other than enforcing contracts and punishing fraud. Actually, I would argue that even employers have no role in healthcare insurance. Employees should purchase it on their own, take it with them from job to job, and this whole brouhaha would evaporate overnight. But our society is now fighting with this issue because our statist leaders want to inject government into places that it does not belong.
By the way, what do you think about the Texas sonogram law? Do you think it should be required nationwide?
AmazingScott: The Catholic Church does not deny evolution. You should get your facts straight before you start breathing fire. And by the way, a number of people reject the axioms behind your comments. How about getting the government out of private organizations so people can be free to do what they want? If there is any lesson from the 20th century, it’s that government coercion should be a last resort because it can lead to really horrible things.
dogrescuer: Suppose the government required all schools to pay for and offer classes in Christian religion, but allowed any student to opt out. Would you support this as well, on the grounds that not all students “have to use it”?
Good post, coprof. Removing the ambiguity from this issue would solve the present confusion over who can do what, which organizations are primarily “religious”, etc.
My question is this: How does Obama “mandate” all these changes, without Congress passing laws? Is he a President, or a dictator?