Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama administration offers faith groups new opt-out of health care birth control mandate
Washington Post ^ | 2/1/2013 | AP

Posted on 02/01/2013 9:09:08 AM PST by reegs

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is announcing a broader opt-out for religious nonprofits that object to providing health insurance that covers birth control.

The administration is allowing religious nonprofits to offer coverage that does not include contraception. In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 0careabortion; 0carecontraception; birthcontrolmandate; contraception; czar; czarofallhealthcare; healthcare; healthcareczar; kingobama; obamacare; popeobama; religion; tsarofwaivers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
Not sure about this whole "third-party" business. Who will be paying the "third-party?" Didn't we go through this business the first time around?
1 posted on 02/01/2013 9:09:17 AM PST by reegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: reegs

Using a third party still requires them to provide the service. Nothing is gained but a salve for “easy” consciences.


2 posted on 02/01/2013 9:11:23 AM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs
In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

That's the same thing.

Nothing but lies from these people.

3 posted on 02/01/2013 9:12:06 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs
Obama administration offers faith groups new opt-out of health care birth control mandate

I'm not sure he can legally simply rewrite the law to save himself from the political mess he's created. In fact, honest people should oppose this.
4 posted on 02/01/2013 9:15:07 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Most large entities (like Catholic hospitals) self-insure. That means they pay their own bills, they use an insurance company to handle the processing and payment of the bills.

Therefore anyone who self-insures would STILL be paying the bill for the contraception and abortifacent coverage. If a firm self-insures that firm can’t escape the cost of any service that’s required to be covered under the firm’s health insurance.

In the non self-insured situation, you conceivably could have the firm paying the insurance company to provide insurance, then the insurer eating the cost of the contraception/abortifacent coverage. Except, of course, they’d pass along that cost in higher rates, so even the non self insured firms would still be paying for it indirectly.

The Obama administration knows this, therefore this is just another cynical ploy to fool the media and give politicians cover.


5 posted on 02/01/2013 9:17:32 AM PST by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs
My high school civics class taught that these legislative matters were decided by the congress, since when did domestic lawmaking become an executive branch task !!!!

throw another impeachable offense onto the growing mountain of unpunished crimes committed by Obama

that reminds me , I have a $600 speeding ticket I need to pay, (minor tickets are $600 in California now) I wonder how much Obama will have to pay for his constant misdemeanors

6 posted on 02/01/2013 9:18:45 AM PST by KTM rider ( American at heart..... Rebel by force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

SCREW YOU OBAMA. WE WIN WILL DEFEAT YOUR DAMNABLE LAW IN COURT.


7 posted on 02/01/2013 9:19:13 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Just for my own information, which legally elected body agreed to these changes in the law?

I thought so.

Chairman Zero simply trying to cover his rear end.


8 posted on 02/01/2013 9:20:15 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Numbers Guy

how is this any difference than the “compromise” he offered last year? what exactly am I missing here?


9 posted on 02/01/2013 9:20:52 AM PST by longfellowsmuse (last of the living nomads)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar
Nothing is gained but a salve for “easy” consciences.

And a specious argument for John Roberts to hang his 5th. vote on.


10 posted on 02/01/2013 9:21:35 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

This is like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and then deciding they’ll give you back your stuff.


11 posted on 02/01/2013 9:29:42 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: reegs
Religious non-profits ? What about religious profit-making companies ? Why does the federal government have the prerogative to determine somehow that Christian-based (for example), profit-making companions are not genuine in their faith ? How is it that government can deny a family from having a company operated on strong Christian convictions and principles, which still makes a profit and provides jobs for others ?

Since these questions were not being asked before the passing of "Obamacare," it demonstrates the ANTI-God nature of Obamacare, and that DELIBERATELY written into it.

This is outright Soviet Union style lawmaking and implementation.

12 posted on 02/01/2013 9:31:03 AM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

This is a sleezy attempt by Obama to avoid another judicial slap-down for another unconstitutional action.

Just more typical Obama sneakiness: twisting words and meanings, lying subterfuge and obfuscation.

Nothing is “free”.

If a religious group’s insurance provider has to provide “free” contraception the costs are still there. They may be hidden but will be rolled into premiums charged.


13 posted on 02/01/2013 9:31:23 AM PST by Iron Munro (I Miss America, don't you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Acts 7:85

58 Then they dragged him out of the city and began to stone him; and the witnesses laid their coats at the feet of a young man named Saul.

You don’t need to pay, please hold are coats while someone else does.


14 posted on 02/01/2013 9:33:34 AM PST by ThomasThomas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs; All
Judge Brian Cogan, “There is no ‘trust me’ clause in the US Constitution”

Obama promised not to enforce portions of the law. Judge Cogan said, “put it in writing” -—

http://washingtonexaminer.com/court-obama-must-rewrite-contraception-mandate-to-accommodate-religious-liberty/article/2516377

15 posted on 02/01/2013 9:38:16 AM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

“The administration is allowing religious nonprofits to offer coverage that does not include contraception. In such a case, a third-party issuer will handle all business related to providing birth-control coverage for women, according to a source familiar with the changes who spoke only on condition of anonymity.”


Not good enough, not by a longshot. Use of a third party still forces the religious group to provide coverage for contraception and abortifacients. And even if this “third party” ploy did not violate the religious freedom of religious groups, limiting the exemption to “religious nonprofits” would force religious employers who are not “religious nonprofits” (such as companies owned by practicing Christians or Orthodox Jews) to provide direct contraceptive and abortifacient coverage even when such coverage violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

Obama is desperate because he’s afraid that the entire “birth-control mandate” will be struck down on First Amendment grounds. We can’t let him adopt some half-assed effort at a “compromise” that will result in “free” abortions for millions of women paid for by all of us.


16 posted on 02/01/2013 9:48:42 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; EricTheRed_VocalMinority; ...

The list, Ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

http://www.nachumlist.com/


17 posted on 02/01/2013 9:53:09 AM PST by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

“Not sure about this whole “third-party” business. Who will be paying the “third-party?” Didn’t we go through this business the first time around?”

Depends on how it’s structured... If my org. doesn’t want to provide for birth control (or abortion), and one of my employees wants to go to another insurance company not associated with me and obtain what ever coverage he or she desires, it seems to me that that is none of my business.

...No more so that if said employee went to the drug store and bought the drugs or services with cash.


18 posted on 02/01/2013 9:53:59 AM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FRiends

We need FReepers to flood us with donations.



Click the Pic


Support Free Republic

19 posted on 02/01/2013 9:56:33 AM PST by deoetdoctrinae (Gun free zones are playgrounds for felons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

How can an administration just alter an existing law?


20 posted on 02/01/2013 9:59:28 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We deserve the government we allow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reegs

But if you make evil profits, you have to pay your employees to abort, even if your church tells you are abetting murder.


21 posted on 02/01/2013 10:07:50 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (Of the government, by the government, and for the government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longfellowsmuse
how is this any difference than the “compromise” he offered last year? what exactly am I missing here?

I haven't seen the details, but I'm guessing it adds another layer between the employer and the insurer, so it looks more "distant", although the end result is the same, the employer is paying for the services.

22 posted on 02/01/2013 10:15:13 AM PST by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KTM rider
since when did domestic lawmaking become an executive branch task

Since Congress decided to punt the ball the last 4 years and will follow the same game plan for the next 4 years.

[a little Super Bowl football reference for this weekend]

23 posted on 02/01/2013 10:18:49 AM PST by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: reegs
third-party issuer

Robbing Peter to kill Paul.

24 posted on 02/01/2013 10:20:11 AM PST by EternalVigilance ('Where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it.' Samuel Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Still all “smoke and mirrors,” just like before.

And what about For-Profits run by real Christians? (Or does “for-profit” make them second-class citizens?)


25 posted on 02/01/2013 10:43:40 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

Most of the law gave Administrative Branch entities to write the law and fill in the details.


26 posted on 02/01/2013 10:43:40 AM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar; AD from SpringBay
Most of the law gave Administrative Branch entities to write the law and fill in the details.

In other works, a stack of blank, signed checks.

So, this is the "it" that we had find out was in this law once we passed it.

27 posted on 02/01/2013 10:48:49 AM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: reegs
He's bending over backwards to promote unborn death, lusty relationships, sorrowful women, wimpy men, and broken relationships. Is it any wonder why this man has flies all over his face?

Pray for the end of abortion: http://adorationrocks.posterous.com/166971716
28 posted on 02/01/2013 11:01:34 AM PST by mlizzy (If people spent an hour a week in Eucharistic adoration, abortion would be ended. --Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Free birth control is the one good thing about Obamacare. Less unwanted babies means less abortions, less demand on welfare, lower crime rate.

Birth control should be given away on street corners, it should be a mist in the air in high schools, it should be spiked in mountain dew and sunny delight... In 15 years we’d live in a utopia.


29 posted on 02/01/2013 11:33:44 AM PST by J05h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Exactly. They passed a fill in the blank law where the Administration could fill in the blanks.


30 posted on 02/01/2013 11:36:43 AM PST by Ingtar (Everyone complains about the weather, but only Liberals try to legislate it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Dictators akin to Hitler and Obama don’t need legislatures.


31 posted on 02/01/2013 11:40:20 AM PST by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

If anyone other than the religious organization buys a rider to the woman’s policy for her, then I have no problem with it BEYOND my normal problem with government telling us what to do, to buy, to think AND buying stuff for people who won’t work.


32 posted on 02/01/2013 11:57:08 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

It’s going to get ugly friends. Let the Catholic bashing begin. Jesus I trust in You


33 posted on 02/01/2013 12:01:30 PM PST by mgist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

It’s going to get ugly friends. Let the Catholic bashing begin. Jesus I trust in You


34 posted on 02/01/2013 12:01:30 PM PST by mgist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I think the law was written with a clause that allows the Obama administration to change the participation requirements as it sees fit.

- Allowing exemptions as they see fit based on political donations, religious belief, union affiliation, congressional district (firms in close race districts get extra allowances.)

(Not really, but that is how it seems to be operating.)


35 posted on 02/01/2013 12:12:28 PM PST by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Yes, further UNEQUAL treatment, another violation of the Civil Rights Act, anything to get the Insurance-Banking Anti-Glass Steigals permanent hammer and sickles on everyones backs.


36 posted on 02/01/2013 12:37:17 PM PST by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Yes, further UNEQUAL treatment, another violation of the Civil Rights Act, anything to get the Insurance-Banking Anti-Glass Steagals permanent hammer and sickles on everyones backs.


37 posted on 02/01/2013 12:37:57 PM PST by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reegs
The problem is that the religious organization has to admit the government has authority over it, as a prerequisite of opting out.
....people say to me, "But the early Church didn't practice civil disobedience." Didn't they? You don't know your history again. When those Christians that we all talk about so much allowed themselves to be thrown into the arena, when they did that, from their view it was a religious thing. They would not worship anything except the living God. But you must recognize from the side of the Roman state, there was nothing religious about it at all -- it was purely civil. The Roman Empire had disintegrated until the only unity it had was its worship of Caesar. You could be an atheist; you could worship the Zoroastrian religion... You could do anything. They didn't care. It was a civil matter, and when those Christians stood up there and refused to worship Caesar, from the side of the state, they were rebels. They were in civil disobedience and they were thrown to the beasts.
-- Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

38 posted on 02/01/2013 12:41:04 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reegs

The kenyan vulture acts as if he is doing anyone a favor. Makes me want to puke on Moochie.


39 posted on 02/01/2013 12:51:36 PM PST by Neoliberalnot (Marxism works well only with the uneducated and the unarmed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Varsity Flight

(Steagall) double “l”


40 posted on 02/01/2013 12:53:09 PM PST by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

The problem is that the religious organization has to admit the government has authority over it, as a prerequisite of opting out.
....people say to me, “But the early Church didn’t practice civil disobedience.” Didn’t they? You don’t know your history again. When those Christians that we all talk about so much allowed themselves to be thrown into the arena, when they did that, from their view it was a religious thing. They would not worship anything except the living God. But you must recognize from the side of the Roman state, there was nothing religious about it at all — it was purely civil. The Roman Empire had disintegrated until the only unity it had was its worship of Caesar. You could be an atheist; you could worship the Zoroastrian religion... You could do anything. They didn’t care. It was a civil matter, and when those Christians stood up there and refused to worship Caesar, from the side of the state, they were rebels. They were in civil disobedience and they were thrown to the beasts.
— Francis Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto

...”You cannot serve God and Mammon” and Matt. Chapters 5-7


41 posted on 02/01/2013 12:56:22 PM PST by Varsity Flight (Extortion-Care is the Government Work-Camp: Arbeitsziehungslager)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Well said, sir. Well said. I ain’t gonna pay for SFA.


42 posted on 02/01/2013 1:36:55 PM PST by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: reegs

Rumplestilskin


43 posted on 02/01/2013 2:42:14 PM PST by rawcatslyentist ("Behold, I am against you, O arrogant one," Jeremiah 50:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

I’d like to see the clause where Obama’s allowed to rewrite the law unilaterally. In any case, this comes on the heels of a judge dismissing one lawsuit because Obama’s not done rewriting the law yet:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/24b5a11e-759f-5a1e-923f-1db75bb30c8c.html

Excerpt:
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday, saying it was premature because of the government’s intent to make changes in the law and because religious and nonprofit groups were given until August to comply.

“The challenged regulation is not sufficiently final for review,” Ross wrote. “Plaintiffs also lack standing to challenge the present regulatory requirement because they are not subject to that requirement ...”


44 posted on 02/01/2013 2:43:35 PM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: babygene

We can guess who will be paying the third party—you and I. So taxpayers will fund free “reproductive health care”. In other words, abortion.


45 posted on 02/01/2013 2:46:34 PM PST by Greenperson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Obama is desperate because he’s afraid that the entire “birth-control mandate” will be struck down on First Amendment grounds. We can’t let him adopt some half-assed effort at a “compromise” that will result in “free” abortions for millions of women paid for by all of us.

Correct. This ruling does not help Hobby Lobby and their lawsiut. Why should an organization or company be able to “opt-out” (not really) but an owner of a business as a “person” does not have the same right?


46 posted on 02/01/2013 3:47:17 PM PST by Wisconsinlady (The 2nd amendment is NOT about hunting-but protection from a tyrannical govt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Greenperson

“We can guess who will be paying the third party—you and I. So taxpayers will fund free “reproductive health care”. In other words, abortion.”

That is true, and I don’t approve of it, but that’s a separate issue. We of course do that today through medicaid and other government programs.


47 posted on 02/01/2013 4:32:16 PM PST by babygene ( .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

No. Actually, it’s like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and offering to let you know which pawn shop he used to dispose of your valuables. He’s not giving up anything....let alone his freedom to keep robbing us.

“This is like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and then deciding they’ll give you back your stuff.”


48 posted on 02/01/2013 6:24:19 PM PST by XenaLee (The only good commie is a dead commie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reegs
Apparently these words have no meaning anymore-"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
49 posted on 02/01/2013 7:00:10 PM PST by RginTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Triple

Without a doubt it gave the the ability to be (unconstitutionally) arbitrary and capacious. When is someone going to call them out on that. So many things have been held up as unconstitutional due to being arbitrary and capacious. Except this law.

The separation of church and state sounds great to the leftists....until they get to control its impact.

Like race THE LAW should be blind to religion. When it is not - we should know we have a serious problem.

Color blind law is good.

Religious blind law is good also.


50 posted on 02/01/2013 7:04:17 PM PST by bluecat6 ("All non-denial denials. They doubt our ancestry, but they don't say the story isn't accurate. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson