Religion
Related: About this forumA Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: January 26, 2013
In a flood of lawsuits, Roman Catholics, evangelicals and Mennonites are challenging a provision in the new health care law that requires employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — a high-stakes clash between religious freedom and health care access that appears headed to the Supreme Court.
In recent months, federal courts have seen dozens of lawsuits brought not only by religious institutions like Catholic dioceses but also by private employers ranging from a pizza mogul to produce transporters who say the government is forcing them to violate core tenets of their faith. Some have been turned away by judges convinced that access to contraception is a vital health need and a compelling state interest. Others have been told that their beliefs appear to outweigh any state interest and that they may hold off complying with the law until their cases have been judged. New suits are filed nearly weekly.
“This is highly likely to end up at the Supreme Court,” said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia and one of the country’s top scholars on church-state conflicts. “There are so many cases, and we are already getting strong disagreements among the circuit courts.”
President Obama’s health care law, known as the Affordable Care Act, was the most fought-over piece of legislation in his first term and was the focus of a highly contentious Supreme Court decision last year that found it to be constitutional.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/health/religious-groups-and-employers-battle-contraception-mandate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
cbayer
(146,218 posts)This is what happens when you grant exceptions for rather vague reasons, imo.
rug
(82,333 posts)As employers they cannot be exempt from the ACA.
As church affiliated institutions they cannot provide abortifacients and contraception.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Some of them are big money makers.
What ever happened to the solution that they wouldn't be the one providing it? That would technically be the role of the insurance provider. They would just pay general premiums.
Hey, if they can find a way to see a fetus as not having standing in a law suit, surely they can get this one.
Freddie
(9,267 posts)Don't think any Catholic institutions closed over this. And there are no "abortifacients" involved here, that's another RW lie.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you think RU-486 is an abortifacient?
Freddie
(9,267 posts)www.guttmacher.org
RU-486 is the "abortion pill" which is not considered contraception and is just as heavily regulated (required visits, waiting periods, etc) as surgical abortion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)once I get there?
Freddie
(9,267 posts)Sorry haven't figured out how to do links on my phone yet!
rug
(82,333 posts)
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)The expanded coverage of women’s preventive services includes a requirement that plans cover all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptive services. This contraceptive requirement has received significant media coverage with respect to health plans of certain religious employers. Certain emergency contraceptives are included in this requirement, including Plan B and “ella,” which are approved by the FDA for sale as emergency contraception in the United States. As required, HealthFlex will cover these medications. According to academic research, emergency contraceptive pills (sometimes called “morning-after pills”) prevent pregnancy primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation; they do not cause a medicated abortion.
The pill known as mifepristone or RU-486 (often called the “abortion pill”) is a different drug from ella or Plan B. RU-486 is not covered by the federal requirement, nor is it covered under the HealthFlex plan.
http://www.gbophb.org/TheWell/Root/HFLX/4434.pdf
rug
(82,333 posts)http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/feb/10/health-care-law-catholics-birth-control/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Dictionaries: "A drug or other agent that causes the premature termination of pregnancy."
"Abortifacient drugs are used to induce abortion or miscarriage, as a medical alternative to surgical termination"
Encyclopedia: "If sperm cells are present in the oviduct as the egg cell is passing down it, one of the sperm cells may join with the egg cell. This is called fertilization.
When the fertilized egg reaches the uterus it attaches itself to the uterus lining. This is called implantation and signals the start of pregnancy."
RW: "something that prevents the implantation of a fertilized egg"
rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)(OED, "The Royal Society of Medicine: Medicines" and the Hutchinson Enc. respectively), since I wanted authorities who speak English, but don't get mixed up with political arguments about pregnancy. Your reference does point out:
"In multivariable analysis, the consideration that religion is the most important thing in one's life (odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.2–0.9) and an objection to abortion (odds ratio, 0.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.2–0.9) were associated independently and inversely with believing that pregnancy begins at implantation."
so it does look like it's an American right wing thing. I presume you don't agree with it.
rug
(82,333 posts)There have been debates inside and outside the medical community for decades regarding whether a pregnancy begins at fertilization or implantation. The HHS has adopted the implantation standard. I expect that will be one of the issues determined at the end of this round of litigation.
Beyond that, either speak plainly or keep your ugly insinuations to yourself.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)hence abortion not being covered by the ACA.
As your paper points out, "Since 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has defined pregnancy as beginning with implantation of the embryo in the uterine wall."
I'd expect the HHS to adopt that standard, and not try to rewrite it. That would be political interference in science. And I don't think litigation should be able to rewrite medical definitions either. The US is a bit fucked if it can.
Plainly? I think you want to use the right wing definition (#19 either means that, or it means you made a mistake in reading what you quoted), but won't say that directly. Which definition do you favour?
rug
(82,333 posts)It's based on facts. To coin a phrase, observable, replicable facts. There is no "right wing" or left wing medical definition. What is the term for someone who subordinates facts to ideology?
As to this question, FWIW, I agree with the majority of the mebers of the ACOG. Fertilization marks the beginning of pregnancy.
Now, the real question, which you nudge up to but hesitate to cross, is what to do with that fact. The only political question, right or left, is whether that abortifacient should be legal or banned.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)I support abortion being available. What has ever made you think I wouldn't say that? Do you think abortifacients should be legal? Or would you ban them? Would you ban abortion of any kind?
What 'fact' are you talking about in your last paragraph, though? That "biology is based on facts"? That is the 'fact' that you mention in your post. But I can't see how I'm "nudging up to but hesitating to cross" it.
"What is the term for someone who subordinates facts to ideology? " To generalise, a right winger.
rug
(82,333 posts)Which of us modified a medical term with a political term?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)Now, will you answer the backlog of questions you've dodged?
Do you want to make RU-486 illegal in the USA?
Do you want to make abortion illegal in the USA?
rug
(82,333 posts)You are the one who believes a basic biological fact is a political litmus test.
The answer to your two questions is, of course not.
Now, let's get back to your predilection for equating biology with politics.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)(and, yes, physicians are more Republican than Democratic, "55 % of Physicians Support Romney, 36 % Obama for President"
The "basic biological fact" is, as I pointed out using a dictionary, a medical dictionary, and an encyclopedia, is that pregnancy begins at implantation.
rug
(82,333 posts)You are clearly missing the point.
The issue - the only issue - is whether abortifacients should be either included in the ACA and/or banned.
The political issue is not whether pregnancy begins at fertiliation or implantation.
Let me ask you this: if the HHS reverses its rule and adopts the majority view, that it is at implantation, does that make a difference? So what. The political question remainds the same.
Meanwhile you, in full witch-hunting mode trying to layer politics on science, are ignoring the fact that these questions are in litigation right now. The question is political and the solution is political. The issue for the courts is this: If abortifacients are legal there is no cognizable legal basis to exempt an employer from providing coverage for its employees.
I suggest you broaden your data beyond your dictionary and encyclopedia.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)The political issues here are:
Should regular contraception be covered by employer health insurance?
Should emergency contraception be covered by employer health insurance?
Should religious-affiliated corporations get exemptions to the general rule?
See - nothing about abortifacients there at all.
The HHS does not have a 'rule' to reverse. It uses the definition of pregnancy of the major scientific organisations in the USA:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-06-20/news/0506200177_1_emergency-contraception-morning-after-pill-regular-birth-control-pills
Is that data broad enough for you?
I'm not in witch-hunting mode. I was correcting the bad definition you tried to use in #19. You may claim you are being hunted, but you claimed that it was a question for the left as to whether abortifacients should be banned. I had to get you to answer it yourself (after asking you twice) because you claimed that's all we had to decide.
"The issue for the courts is this: If abortifacients are legal there is no cognizable legal basis to exempt an employer from providing coverage for its employees."
Well, no, of course that's not the issue. A treatment can be legal without it having to be included in health insurance. I don't think you understand what people are arguing at all. Maybe you should read up on the basics of this before proceeding.
rug
(82,333 posts)In 2008, in regard to the "conscience" exemptions for health care workers, HHS dropped its previous definition of pregnancy as stemming from fertilization. They have since adhered to the new definition.
One of the challeges to ACA is precisely this current interpretation of pregnancy onset employed by HHS.
And in terms of the ACA, that is the ultimate issue: whether abortifacients, contraceptives, and contraceptives having abortifacient properties post fertilization, should be covered.
You're right, I should disregard your clumsy witch-hunting. I should not have answered your questions about whether I think abortion and RU-486 should be legal. Classic witch-hunting which is demonstrably not beneath you.
I suggest you stick to the topic or go to Meta with your insinutions. I'll be happy deal with you there.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)and only then did you answer. Now you think you should have refused to answer? Wow, rug, you seem to think that this thread is your personal court, where you get to ask all the questions, and never have to state your own position.
2008? OK, let's see:
The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
...
There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.
...
Critics charge that the proposal is the latest example of the administration politicizing science to advance ideological goals.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238.html
A few weeks later:
...
An early draft of the regulation that leaked in July triggered a flood of criticism from women's health activists, family planning advocates, members of Congress and others. Concern focused on fears that the definition of abortion could be interpreted to include many forms of widely used contraception.
"Words in that draft led some to misconstrue the department's intent," Leavitt told reporters during a telephone news conference. "This regulation . . . is consistent with my intent to focus squarely on the issue of conscience rights. This specifically goes to the issue of abortion and conscience."
But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/08/21/ST2008082103218.html
So, we can conclude:
The right wing tried to change the HHS definition of pregnancy, for explicitly ideological reasons - to allow health workers to refuse to work with abortion, Plan B and regular birth control
HHS did not have a "previous definition of pregnancy as stemming from fertilization". The Bush administration tried to insert that definition.
rug, I have been sticking to the topic. More so than you. You're been trying to drag this into a question of whether abortion should be legal:
"Do you think RU-486 is an abortifacient?"
"the only political issue is whether it should be legal" (no, this is about whether employers have to cover contraception, not the legality of contraception, or of abortion)
"The only political question, right or left, is whether that abortifacient should be legal or banned." (we have conclusively shown RU-486 is nothing to do with the ACA, despite your claims)
"Lol. So, the political party determines the fact, not the science" (we see that the Republicans tried to do this in 2008)
This discussion does not belong in Meta in any shape or form. It's about religious objections to providing healthcare. You can't go whining "let's take this to Meta" when your claims are shown to be false or misleading, time after time.
rug
(82,333 posts)Do you want to make RU-486 illegal in the USA?
Do you want to make abortion illegal in the USA?
Utterly extraneous to the ACA litigation which is what the OP is about. Now, tell me who you are that I should give you or your obvious insinuating questions any credence?
Now, as to 2008, it appears in your zeal to shape science into your own political view you have failed to notice that, since 2008, HHS considers pregnancy to commemce with implantation. Hence, it does not curently view medicine that prevents implantation of a zygote to be an abortifacient. Others disagree. Hence the litigation. It's very simple.
No, this discussion, after you are corrected, does belong here. Your personal insinuations and general bullshit don't. If you want to keep posting that crap, we are about to have a series of very ugly exchanges.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)You brought up RU-486. You brought up abortifacients. I say again: you seem to think that this thread is your personal court, where you get to ask all the questions, and never have to state your own position.
In #46, you claimed "In 2008, in regard to the "conscience" exemptions for health care workers, HHS dropped its previous definition of pregnancy as stemming from fertilization. They have since adhered to the new definition. ". The Washington Post shows that is wrong. HHS never used a "previous definition of pregnancy as stemming from fertilization"; the WP said "it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg". Did you actually read that? I put it in bold, for those who don't get points easily. I've now repeated it, just for you.
The bullshit in this exchange has come entirely from you. You are consistently pretending that you haven't posted things that you have; you mischaracterise the regulations, and history. You have been quite ugly already. You accuse me of witch-hunting. I have been putting out the facts, and countering your incorrect posts.
rug
(82,333 posts)Where is there anything suggesting abortion should be illegal?
Your questions stemmed from your own febrile mind, not from this thread.
Let me be quite clear to you: this thread is not your personal platform to challenge what you consider to be proper political credentials.
That bullshit is entirely yours. If you want to continue with that line of bullshit, proceed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)"The only political question, right or left, is whether that abortifacient should be legal or banned". You asked me; after I replied, I asked you too - what you claimed, at one time, is "the only political question" on the subject. And when you didn't answer, I asked you again.
rug, this thread is a new low for you. You are disowning what you've said yourself in this thread, pretending that it wasn't you who brought up abortifacients. Seriously, what do you think this does to your reputation on DU? You are putting forward right wing misinformation and then claiming it never happened.
rug
(82,333 posts)The HHS rule states it does not require coverage of abortifacients because of its definition of the onset of pregnancy. The litigation, among other things challenges that.
Now, as to "new lows", you again repeat your bullshit: "You are putting forward right wing misinformation". Combined with your intital assertion in #20, "Only if you accept the right wing re-definition of 'abortifacient'", your doubling down on that in #24, "I think you want to use the right wing definition (#19 either means that, or it means you made a mistake in reading what you quoted), but won't say that directly", and your McCarthyesque questions in #30, who do you think you're kidding?
I would say this is a new low for you but it's not new from you.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,322 posts)attempted by the Bush administration, I must leave you to defend your championing of the Bush administration's attack on abortion. It's awful to see a DUer do that, but you've embraced it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Glad to see your arguments are bankrupt.
It's awful to see a DUer resort to despearate slanders, but you're wallowing in it.
BTW, if you've been following along, that proposed definition was deleted from the final regulation resultng in the implantation standard now used by HHS. Don't let facts deter you.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)if one considers that pregnancy begins at fertilization rather than implantation, the conclusion would be that at least 70% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. No one really thinks this, and it would imply that Nature/God is very pro-abortion.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)they have used.
Do you have more info?
I haven't read through it to see how it compares with the ACA and the federal controversy.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)20 of them allow exemptions. So there are 8 states without exemptions,
No info that I can find on how Catholic hospitals have handled that in these states.
rug
(82,333 posts)The test then is what the hospitals have done in those eight states.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)be hard for the larger institution to object at this point.
Now that it's on a national scale, I imagine those local bishops would threaten to yank their affiliiation. Then the choice is still, close, sell, or disaffiliate.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Catholic hospitals are "different entities" than the Catholic Church. They are under no obligation to adhere to Catholic teachings, if your claims are to be believed.
rug
(82,333 posts)That thread, which you mistitled, equates the two institutions. They are different.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)(This is the Westboro Baptist Church website. You know, a religious one.)
Skittles
(153,169 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)on charity.
And civil liberties.
And social justice.
And even environmental issues (can you believe it??)
Here's some more religious crap for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121865875
Skittles
(153,169 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)crap and all.
Thanks for stopping by!
Skittles
(153,169 posts)
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Bigotry, social injustice, manipulation of governmental powers and stepping on people's civil rights is not confined to religion either.
There's crap everywhere. I prefer to support those doing the right thing, religious or not.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)and not because it guarantees me some kind of reward
good night!!
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I agree completely with what you just said here.
LeftishBrit
(41,208 posts)whether done for religious or any other - e.g. nationalist - reasons.
