Skip to comments.Obama administration offers faith groups new opt-out of health care birth control mandate
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 ...
Using a third party still requires them to provide the service. Nothing is gained but a salve for “easy” consciences.
That's the same thing.
Nothing but lies from these people.
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.
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
SCREW YOU OBAMA. WE WIN WILL DEFEAT YOUR DAMNABLE LAW IN COURT.
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.
how is this any difference than the “compromise” he offered last year? what exactly am I missing here?
This is like a thief robbing your house, getting caught, and then deciding they’ll give you back your stuff.
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.
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.
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.
Obama promised not to enforce portions of the law. Judge Cogan said, “put it in writing” -—
“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.”
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.
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
“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.
How can an administration just alter an existing law?
But if you make evil profits, you have to pay your employees to abort, even if your church tells you are abetting murder.
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.
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]
Robbing Peter to kill Paul.
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?)
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.
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.
Exactly. They passed a fill in the blank law where the Administration could fill in the blanks.
Dictators akin to Hitler and Obama don’t need legislatures.
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.
It’s going to get ugly friends. Let the Catholic bashing begin. Jesus I trust in You
It’s going to get ugly friends. Let the Catholic bashing begin. Jesus I trust in You
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.)
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.
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.
....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
The kenyan vulture acts as if he is doing anyone a favor. Makes me want to puke on Moochie.
(Steagall) double “l”
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
Well said, sir. Well said. I ain’t gonna pay for SFA.
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:
U.S. District Judge John A. Ross dismissed the lawsuit Tuesday, saying it was premature because of the governments 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 ...
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.
Obama is desperate because hes afraid that the entire birth-control mandate will be struck down on First Amendment grounds. We cant 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?
“We can guess who will be paying the third partyyou 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.
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 theyll give you back your stuff.”
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.
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.