Is Free Birth Control like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor?

Another question. Do churches have to provide coverage under the new law? Our church does not provide health insurance for its employees. They all get their insurance through Blue Cross Blue sheld for individuals. Could not a church or company that objected to BC not provide insurance and then pay the $2,000 tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal

The problem with our insurance models is that when we are all paying into the same pool (all meaning employers and employees) as is the most typical, how do you separate out what I am paying for vs what my employer is paying for? If I pay $300 a month for my premium (and I do) it's hard to say that I shouldn't be able to have a portion of my $300 that I pay put towards my birth control just because my employer also pays for part of it (sort of, like I said above, I'm pretty sure the typical model is that employers factor in cost of benefits when they decide how much to pay an employee...) Maybe I don't think my boss should manage his diabetes through medication and think that he should focus on diet and exercise. Is he infringing on my rights just because we both pay into the same pool? Is that really the direction we want to go in, where we are all looking at each other's medical benefits and arguing about what we personally agree with? Or should we just leave it up to personal choice?

---

I think the big difference here would be things you personally disagree with (ie the diabetes med example) and things that as an organization they are fundamentally opposed to. The church has never wavered on their view of BC, this isnt a choice made to wage war on woman. I think if you choose to work for a catholic organization you need to accept that you will be paying for BC. If a woman feels that paying the $35 a month for her own meds is a infringement on personal rights she can (and probably should) find a different employer. (and yes I am aware that finding jobs is hard now)

If the Catholic church was saying that you could not use BC at all if work for them I think that is an infringement of rights. I just cannot see it as an infringement of rights if you have to pay for it yourself, I think having personal rights comes with personal responsibility.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers

Another question. Do churches have to provide coverage under the new law? Our church does not provide health insurance for its employees. They all get their insurance through Blue Cross Blue sheld for individuals. Could not a church or company that objected to BC not provide insurance and then pay the $2,000 tax?

---

I believe that one of the consequences to this new ruling is that some employers will drop coverage instead of paying for things they disagree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mom3girls

I think the big difference here would be things you personally disagree with (ie the diabetes med example) and things that as an organization they are fundamentally opposed to.

---

How is there a big difference between my personal belief and a religious organizations personal beliefs (in terms of the law?)

You do pay for your own birth control, by paying your own insurance premiums. Again, I don't know anybody who gets their benefits for free, not even my teacher husband. Sure, his are cheaper than mine, but he also gets paid less, which goes back to what I was talking about how employers factor in cost of benefits in your total compensation packet. If your insurance is part of your pay for working there, I consider it as much yours as the money in your paycheck. It's not a gift.

Freedom of religion is for people, not corporations and other inanimate entitites. Joe Blow as a person has the right to express his religious freedoms, but Joe Blow's business can't go to church or read a bible and has no business in the pants of its employees. Same with the Catholic Church and all other churches; they are groups of individual people who have the right to religious freedoms, but the group itself is not a person and has no such right. As an employer, it must abide by the law that all other employers must abide, and allow its employees to exercise their own religious freedoms and health care decisions for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mom3girls

I believe that one of the consequences to this new ruling is that some employers will drop coverage instead of paying for things they disagree with.

---

For the most part, they won't be able to without risking the penalty.

Morning after pill is included in the mandate. Religious employers are currently exempt for additional review as well as "safe harbor employers" but that list is small. Even those that you think are religious employers may not qualify.

The thing is BC is used for other purposes besides family planning. Medical purposes and should be covered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spacers

Freedom of religion is for people, not corporations and other inanimate entitites. Joe Blow as a person has the right to express his religious freedoms, but Joe Blow's business can't go to church or read a bible and has no business in the pants of its employees. Same with the Catholic Church and all other churches; they are groups of individual people who have the right to religious freedoms, but the group itself is not a person and has no such right. As an employer, it must abide by the law that all other employers must abide, and allow its employees to exercise their own religious freedoms and health care decisions for themselves.

---

Again, explain to me how the Catholic church is "trying to get in someone's pants"? They are not saying dont use BC, they are simply saying we wont pay for it.

Alyssa, I get what you are saying. It is actually one of my biggest issues with our current insurance systems. I think for the money I pay in I should have more of a say in my health care choices. I am a big fan of HSAs for this reason. I just do not see the issue in paying for BC, I have been paying for it for years, even with pretty good health insurance.
I just keep going back to the idea that everyone has a choice, and if you choose to work for an employer that does not cover BC then you have to pay for it yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mom3girls

Again, explain to me how the Catholic church is "trying to get in someone's pants"? They are not saying dont use BC, they are simply saying we wont pay for it.

---

Again, if health benefits are considered part of the employee's pay for working there, I don't think they get to say "we won't pay for X" any more than they get to put limitations on what the employee uses their paycheck for.