Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

cal04

(41,505 posts)
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:38 PM Jul 2015

Birth Control Coverage Guaranteed for All — Despite Religious Exemptions

Source: Yahoo

The Obama administration on Friday issued a workaround to last year’s Hobby Lobby ruling which gave companies religious exemptions on coverage of certain forms of birth control.

A new rule issued by the Obama administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Friday affirmed that, even given the religious exemptions provided by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burrell v Hobby Lobby last year, all women will still be able to get coverage for all forms of birth control through the Affordable Care Act.

The rule creates an accommodation, which permits companies to opt out of providing coverage but the insurance carrier still must provide it — which ensures that women will have access to no-cost birth control, no matter where they work.

For a company to receive a religious exemption from providing coverage for the methods of birth control outlined in last year’s Hobby Lobby case — that is, any form of birth control that prevents implantation such as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and the emergency morning-after pill, the new standard will be that it must be a for-profit company not publicly traded with 50 percent ownership by five or fewer individuals, with members of a nuclear family all counting as one individual. Additionally, the company must produce a formal corporate statement that expresses their religious beliefs.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-17076.pdf



White House Finds Way Around Hobby Lobby Birth Control Decision
(snip)
Under the new rule, a closely held for-profit company that objects to covering contraception in its health plan can write a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services stating its objection. HHS will then notify a third-party insurer of the company's objection, and the insurer will provide birth control coverage to the company's female employees at no additional cost to the company.

“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a statement. “At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/10/white-house-birth-control_n_7771004.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/health/breaking-birth-control-coverage-guaranteed-for-123731031997.html



Administration issues final rules on coverage of certain recommended preventive services without cost sharing

Final rules secure women’s access to contraceptive services while respecting religious beliefs

Today, the Administration took important steps to make sure women have access to recommended preventive services, including contraceptive services, at no additional cost as required by the Affordable Care Act. The first action announced today maintains the existing accommodation for eligible religious nonprofits, but also finalizes an alternative pathway for those organizations to provide notice of their objection to covering contraceptive services. A second action announced today provides certain closely held for-profit entities the same accommodations. Today’s rules also finalize interim final rules on preventive services coverage generally, with limited changes.

“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” said Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia M. Burwell. “At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

Today, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury, finalized interim final rules that establish an alternative way for eligible organizations that have a religious objection to covering contraceptive services to seek an accommodation from contracting, providing, paying, or referring for such services. These rules allow these eligible organizations to notify HHS in writing of their religious objection to providing contraception coverage, as an alternative to filling out the form provided by the Department of Labor to provide to their issuer or third-party administrator. HHS and the Department of Labor will then notify insurers and third party administrators of the organization’s objection so that enrollees in plans of such organizations receive separate payments for contraceptive services, with no additional cost to the enrollee or organization, and no involvement by the organization.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the Departments are also issuing final rules that provide the above accommodations to closely held for-profit entities. Relying on a definition used in federal tax law, the final rules define a “closely held for-profit entity” as an entity that is not publicly traded and that has an ownership structure under which more than 50 percent of the organization’s ownership interest is owned by five or fewer individuals, or an entity with a substantially similar ownership structure. For purposes of this definition, all of the ownership interests held by members of a family are treated as being owned by a single individual. Based on available information, the Departments believe that this definition includes all of the for-profit companies that have challenged the contraceptive-coverage requirement on religious grounds.

The rules finalize standards concerning documentation and disclosure of a closely held for-profit entity’s decision not to provide coverage for contraceptive services.

Today’s rules also finalize interim final rules on the coverage of preventive services generally, with limited changes. They reflect public feedback received in response to the interim final rules issued in 2010 and proposed and interim final rules issued in August 2014.


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2015pres/07/20150710a.html
32 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Birth Control Coverage Guaranteed for All — Despite Religious Exemptions (Original Post) cal04 Jul 2015 OP
Since the advent of modern birth control olddots Jul 2015 #1
Problem if they Self Insure HockeyMom Jul 2015 #2
Was wondering the same thing Freddie Jul 2015 #4
But most large employers and no public employers (like schools and hospitals) OrwellwasRight Jul 2015 #9
I think that the original exemption was approved on the basis of making payments for something jwirr Jul 2015 #6
The issue is the self insurance HockeyMom Jul 2015 #13
Okay. It will give the Catholic Church a conscience out though and hopefully they will settle for jwirr Jul 2015 #16
You are FIRED for not following our teachings. Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #10
Why teachers are refusing to sign their "Morality Clauses" Employment Contracts HockeyMom Jul 2015 #14
And they are also big on anti-abortion. How do they reconcile the 2? Elmer S. E. Dump Jul 2015 #18
I hope they could submit to Medicare or Medicaid catrose Jul 2015 #28
Honestly, if the Supremes won't budge on this, we will eventually need a constitutional amendment. ncjustice80 Jul 2015 #31
k&r and good. As it should be. uppityperson Jul 2015 #3
Excellent caveats. lark Jul 2015 #5
The First Feminist President continues! GoBama! freshwest Jul 2015 #7
First Feminist president - I like that! Politicub Jul 2015 #8
Well, Bill was called the first "Black" President HockeyMom Jul 2015 #19
Ensuring that the means of reproduction should be in WOMEN's hands is a powerful statement Hekate Jul 2015 #27
ANd while the adult in DC is doing this, the children are making abstinence only teaching randys1 Jul 2015 #11
Drama bucolic_frolic Jul 2015 #12
Oregon over the counter HockeyMom Jul 2015 #15
This is great, but I'd rather christx30 Jul 2015 #17
I don't think this is an either-or, zero-sum equation. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #20
But I'd be willing to spend the money on Birth control christx30 Jul 2015 #21
If you don't think BC is a life or death issue, you haven't been paying attention. Hekate Jul 2015 #25
Thank you Pres. Obama riversedge Jul 2015 #22
I guess we will have to wait to hear republican exploding heads asiliveandbreathe Jul 2015 #23
K&R Novara Jul 2015 #24
Every woman in this nation should rise up and call him blessed. Thank you, sir. Hekate Jul 2015 #26
Smart man, our President... also wily, cunning, and a 3D chess master. nt procon Jul 2015 #29
Woo hoo! valerief Jul 2015 #30
Why is pleasure so harmful to religion? I_Like_Hammers Jul 2015 #32
 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
1. Since the advent of modern birth control
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 12:49 PM
Jul 2015

Businesses have gotten huge and very powerful ,this should be taken into consideration .People now outnumber jobs because of two factors ,population and robotics .
Progress can't be stopped as much as religion fights progress it can't stop it .

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
2. Problem if they Self Insure
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:02 PM
Jul 2015

I believe the Catholic Church (i.e, schools) does just that. They are the major religious organization which is opposed to contraception. I worked for a Public School District which dropped national health insurance company and self-insured. Very nosy. Your "boss" knows your medical history because they process your claims.

It would probably would work the same for any religious organization who self-insures. How will this get around that? Could be a major problem. Yes, we see your are taking contraception against our wishes whether we pay for it or not. You are FIRED for not following our teachings. Matter of what we don't know, cannot hurt us, or YOU?

Sorry, but I don't think this get around will be the solution. Maybe have the Pharmacy submit the claim under Medicare or Medicaid? Don't know.

Freddie

(9,266 posts)
4. Was wondering the same thing
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:15 PM
Jul 2015

Most large and many medium sized employers (schools, hospitals) self-insure. There is no "insurance co." to provide the funds for this. Most use a 3rd-party administrator to process claims but I'm also concerned about the confidentiality issue here too.

OrwellwasRight

(5,170 posts)
9. But most large employers and no public employers (like schools and hospitals)
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:43 PM
Jul 2015

would meet this criteria:

it must be a for-profit company not publicly traded with 50 percent ownership by five or fewer individuals, with members of a nuclear family all counting as one individual. Additionally, the company must produce a formal corporate statement that expresses their religious beliefs.


If the company is traded on a public stock exchange, it won't qualify. If it is a government entity, it won't qualify. If it is closely held, but more disperse than 5 peeps owning 50% or more, it won't qualify.

I used to work for a self-insured school district. It wasn't "for profit," and so could not qualify for the Hobby Lobby exemption described here.

I'm not trying to say Hobby Lobby was an OK decision--it wasn't--just saying fewer people are likely to be adversely affected by the self-insured issue than you might think. Seems like the regs are trying to narrow the decision as much as they can.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
6. I think that the original exemption was approved on the basis of making payments for something
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:27 PM
Jul 2015

Last edited Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)

against their religious beliefs. If they fired someone because of what that person believes is a whole different issue and also involves both sets of beliefs. I do not think they would win in the courts.

Edited to say that not all Catholic businesses demand this exemption of their workers. My daughter works for a Catholic Hospital and they do not. But the reason they do not is because there are three other hospitals in the same community and a shortage of workers. In this case they do not demand their non-Catholic workers follow their faith.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
13. The issue is the self insurance
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:31 PM
Jul 2015

They will know, and needing to be reimbursed themselves for it, not a non religious health insurance company. To keep it free for these women, including the confidentiality factor, the government would have to pay for it unbeknown to the religious organization; like with a Federal Program like Medicare or Medicaid, or reimbursing the pharmacy directly where they get their pills from.

Please do not think I am blasting this plan generally. I just think it will not work for self insured religious organizations like the Catholic Church.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
16. Okay. It will give the Catholic Church a conscience out though and hopefully they will settle for
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:57 PM
Jul 2015

that. They can say we are not paying for it so we are not to blame - Obama is to blame. That might satisfy them. Hopefully.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
14. Why teachers are refusing to sign their "Morality Clauses" Employment Contracts
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:40 PM
Jul 2015

I think this has happened in SF recently. Not just BC, but IVF, gay marriage, etc. Personally I feel don't go work there at all if you are not 100% on board with their dogma. Who would want to be subject to something like this?

Again, the Catholic Church is the largest anti-contraception religious organization there is. I just wonder how this will work out.

catrose

(5,067 posts)
28. I hope they could submit to Medicare or Medicaid
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 10:04 PM
Jul 2015

The women need to be able to do an end run around their companies. There was a rule that says the company/entity needs to file a paper saying they're not going to cover contraception, but Wheaton College complained that even filing the paper was too much, because they'd still be helping women get contraception.

ncjustice80

(948 posts)
31. Honestly, if the Supremes won't budge on this, we will eventually need a constitutional amendment.
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 02:05 AM
Jul 2015

The right to healthcare should trump religion imo.

lark

(23,102 posts)
5. Excellent caveats.
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:27 PM
Jul 2015

Scalia must be pissed that Obama is going to win on this, no matter what idiocy he promotes from the bench. Hahahahaha.

 

HockeyMom

(14,337 posts)
19. Well, Bill was called the first "Black" President
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:25 PM
Jul 2015

so why not Obama the "First Feminist" President? He might even qualify for the "First Gay" President too. Quite a legacy!!!!

randys1

(16,286 posts)
11. ANd while the adult in DC is doing this, the children are making abstinence only teaching
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 01:55 PM
Jul 2015

the rule for high schools.

bucolic_frolic

(43,166 posts)
12. Drama
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:19 PM
Jul 2015

They could explain it to me 1000 times

I'll never understand how corporations became able to moralize to their employees

It's none of their business

christx30

(6,241 posts)
17. This is great, but I'd rather
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 02:59 PM
Jul 2015

see reduced prices on my wife's insulin. That costs $70+ per month, and that keeps her alive.

 

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)
20. I don't think this is an either-or, zero-sum equation.
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:34 PM
Jul 2015

I don't think this is an either-or, zero-sum equation.

christx30

(6,241 posts)
21. But I'd be willing to spend the money on Birth control
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 03:46 PM
Jul 2015

if I could save 25% or more on her insulin, which is more important.

Hekate

(90,690 posts)
25. If you don't think BC is a life or death issue, you haven't been paying attention.
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 09:41 PM
Jul 2015

For instance, a diabetic woman who becomes pregnant is automatically a real and severe medical problem.

As was pointed out above, this is not a zero-sum game. It's very important to understand that those who paint it as such are trying to divide us one from the other, and they are trying to remove access to vital health care services to over half the population.

I hope your wife's health remains stable and that you continue to be able to access the best care for her. But ensuring access to needed medicines and services to others will not take away from her, except by the actions of politicians who want to remove access from everyone.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
23. I guess we will have to wait to hear republican exploding heads
Fri Jul 10, 2015, 04:33 PM
Jul 2015

considering they are in NO LA at right to life convention today

Six Republican candidates touted their anti-abortion credentials on Friday at the National Right to Life Convention in New Orleans.

I_Like_Hammers

(30 posts)
32. Why is pleasure so harmful to religion?
Sat Jul 11, 2015, 12:58 PM
Jul 2015

It's ridiculous. Ok, so God MADE sex pleasurable, but he's going to punish you for experiencing it unless you do it under very strict circumstances? How effing STUPID. This crap belongs in the Bronze Age.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Birth Control Coverage Gu...