I’ve taken a look at the supposed concessions made by the Obama administration about required insurance coverage for contraceptives. Here’s what the White House fact sheet says:
The President will also announce that his Administration will propose and finalize a new regulation during this transition year to address the religious objections of the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations. The new regulation will require insurance companies to cover contraception if the religious organization chooses not to. Under the policy:
o Religious organizations will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer their employees to organizations that provide contraception.
o Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception.
o Contraception coverage will be offered to women by their employers’ insurance companies directly, with no role for religious employers who oppose contraception.
o Insurance companies will be required to provide contraception coverage to these women free of charge.
Hum. Religious organizations will not be required to subsidize the cost of contraception—and women will get the coverage FREE OF CHARGE. Is that because contraceptives and a system for delivering them and processing insurance paperwork COST NOTHING?
This is a charade. Insurance companies will obvious raise overall premiums to provide adequate income for the “free” contraceptives. So religious organizations that pay the premiums will indeed be subsidizing the cost of contraceptives.
I find myself exasperated. Why is the Left so committed to the goal of free contraceptives for women?
February 10th, 2012 | 4:04 pm
“Is that because contraceptives and a system for delivering them and processing insurance paperwork COST NOTHING?”
“They do if Obama says they do,” seems to be the message here. Our President, you see, is not bound by laws of scarcity and physics as other mere mortals are.
February 10th, 2012 | 4:15 pm
This is a charade. Insurance companies will obvious raise overall premiums to provide adequate income for the “free” contraceptives. So religious organizations that pay the premiums will indeed be subsidizing the cost of contraceptives.
Not correct. As discussed in another thread, adding coverage of contraception is revenue neutral. What the insurance company pays out in costs for contraception, it makes up for in paying for fewer unplanned pregnancies and associated costs.
I find myself exasperated. Why is the Left so committed to the goal of free contraceptives for women?
Why is the Right so opposed to counting as a medical cost the medical services that virtually all women of childbearing age use at some time?
February 10th, 2012 | 4:24 pm
” Why is the Left so committed to the goal of free contraceptives for women?”
From what I can tell from the anecdotal evidence of comments on Facebook: Because women who vote for Obama want it and it will buy their votes. The same sort of women as the female advisors reporters say convinced the President that this was entirely non-controversial and necessary. They honestly believe that they are entitled to free birth control medications for as long as they want them (not to mention the other things) while people who are gravely ill and require expensive medications to stay healthy and/or alive are not entitled to THEM for free. It is bizarre. It shows that contraception doesn’t necessarily lead to a life of promiscuity and wild abandon, but DOES lead to a life in which one’s desire to do anything but have a baby leads ordinary people to disregard everything from the health of other suffering people to the lives of their own children. They don’t consider it sin or selfishness, they consider it totally normal and obvious. That is more frightening to me, really, than some poor promiscuous woman. We’ve always had those.
February 10th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
“. . . during this transition year . . . “
I thought the “transition year” was put in to allow the religious institutions that did not meet the exmption criteria time to adapt their policies to comply with the regulations. Why is the administration still calling it a “transition year” if this “accommodation” solves the problem? In fact, why does the administration still refer to them as “the non-exempted non-profit religious organizations”? That sounds to me like the “exemption”, such as it was, hasn’t been changed in the least, nor will it be. Perhaps the “transition year” they really have in mind is from pre-election to post-election, after which, they’re hoping, they won’t have to bother with such trifling matters as the Constitution.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
David, and, as was pointed out to you in another thread, even if adding contraception (and abortion drugs and sterilization, remember) is cost-neutral, it nevertheless does cost something. It does not materialize out of thin air; rather, someone pays for it. (This is what socialists often forget to tell you about their “free” social services.)
Who is that “someone?” Even if, as you assert (although not with any evidence), that having children costs more than using contraception (in the long run this is probably not true since children take care of their elderly parents but in the short run it probably is), Catholic organizations will still be paying for contraception. (Or in the slightly modified phrasing of the “compromise,” paying insurance companies who then pay for contraception.) The “cost-neutral” argument is just another red herring, like the (again unsubstantiated) claim that “6 in 10 Catholics” support the mandate (which is irrelevant), or that “receiving federal funds means you follow federal rules” (the mandate applies even if you don’t receive federal funding and in any case the receipt of federal funding doesn’t supersede the first amendment).
Why is the Right so opposed to counting as a medical cost the medical services that virtually all women of childbearing age use at some time?
For the same reason people oppose giving liver transplants to alcoholics, I suppose. It’s not medically necessary except as a safety net for people who want to indulge in a libertine lifestyle.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:16 pm
David Nickol, I cannot speak for “the Right,” but as a woman I’d be a lot happier if this one form of “medical service” weren’t being subsidized. True, most women are prescribed oral contraceptives at one point or another, often as a band-aid treatment that masks the symptoms of underlying reproductive conditions (PCOS, endometriosis, or in my case, sub-clinical hypothyroidism.) I would like to see legitimate understanding of the female reproductive system increase, treating of the symptoms decrease, and a loosening of the hold of Big Pharma on the medical community. Government subsidization of oral contraceptives all but guarantees that none of that will happen.
Oh, and then there’s that tiny religious liberty issue.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:18 pm
David Nickol: I believe you are the one who is not correct. As even the Washington Post acknowledges, “revenue neutral” is not the same as “free”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-catch-in-obamas-contraceptives-compromise/2012/02/10/gIQA5mbG4Q_print.html
It will cost insurance companies money to add the contraceptive and sterilization coverage. And there really is no doubt that the insurance companies will build that cost into the premiums they charge for the policies that Catholic institutions are forced to cover.
The real question is why is the Obama Administration so determined to force Catholic institutions to provide insurance coverage for services and products that contradict Catholic teachings? If it were simply a question of ensuring that employees of Catholic institutions have access to contraceptives if they desire, there are other ways to accomplish this (given this Administration’s breathtaking assertion of federal power) without forcing Catholic institutions to participate.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:25 pm
They honestly believe that they are entitled to free birth control medications for as long as they want them (not to mention the other things) . . .
Employer-provided health insurance is not free. It is a benefit. You work for it. You also generally pay at least some of the cost for it.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
David,
Isn’t Reno right about religous institutions will be ones paying for it, regardless of whether it saves money for the insurance company in the long term?
February 10th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
“Not correct. As discussed in another thread, adding coverage of contraception is revenue neutral. What the insurance company pays out in costs for contraception, it makes up for in paying for fewer unplanned pregnancies and associated costs.”
So why isn’t contraceptive coverage free under every insurance policy?
February 10th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
I believe that Gail has a point, promiscuity isn’t the issue but the codification of an inherent selfishness (not reserved to women) and the dissolution of actual union between couples.
Contraception prevents one from giving one’s body by enjoining to another- it’s a rejection of life and a feeble attempt to hide all realization of mortality.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:35 pm
You know what makes this even crazier? Women who want access to contraception and are worried about the cost can already get it through Title X funds that are appropriated to the tune of over $300M per year.
Not only is this ruling offensive and disrespectful of conscience rights – It is unnecessary.
February 10th, 2012 | 5:56 pm
Doesn’t it seem incoherent that the president whose consciousness was literally forged and hammered on the glowing anvil of group rights doesn’t see their transgression when it, well, bites back. Yet religious practice is also an individual right because from my experience, one can very much feel “individualist” before and after mass.
As a Catholic convert I’m baffled by this talk about “radical individualsm” as a sub-issue here. It sounds just like the old sin of selfishness and I bet most people better understand sin than -isms that come by as often as busses.
As for Mr. Reno’s exasperations. Keep them coming. It’s the difference between, as Msgr. Ronald Knox put it, “I believe” and “I feel.”
Maybe Alan Jacob’s Collect and Litany to St. Jonathan Swift should be permanently posted at FT. “…we pray that You may teach us to be imitators of him so that the follies and stupidities of our own time may receive their proper chastisment…”
I do miss Anglican wit…
February 10th, 2012 | 6:04 pm
David writes:
“Not correct. As discussed in another thread, adding coverage of contraception is revenue neutral. What the insurance company pays out in costs for contraception, it makes up for in paying for fewer unplanned pregnancies and associated costs.”
Oy vey! If the state requires Johnny to pay the insurance company for Suzie’s contraception, Johnny hasn’t ceased paying for Suzie’s contraception if Suzie’s contraceptive use reduces the insurance company’s costs.
So, why have Johnny pay in the first place if it’s all just going to be a wash at the end? In other words, the wrong occurs when the government coerces Johnny to make the initial payment for the service. The fact that the insurance company is able to balance its books as a consequence of that initial payment has no bearing on that judgment.
February 10th, 2012 | 6:11 pm
This issue also shines the light on Obama’s violation of the ‘rules’ by which regulations get implemented.
No required advance posting, No required comment period.
Just a simple decree by our Dictator-in-Chief.
This tyrant and his court must be impeached and removed.
February 10th, 2012 | 6:37 pm
Every act of contraception , would it be not like telling God – ‘I do not trust in You ‘ !
Any choice that destroys that trust , by giving woman the false feeling that she controls her body can only translate to the demeaning attitude that who ever wants to use her is who controls her !
That destructon of faith in God can open means to those who want to set themselves as the idols worthy of having all control !
Obama’s facsination with idols , such as the monkey god might have been a give away !
Hope all those who care and want to conserve what is good and true about our faith and human dignity would take the lessons seriously enough , to help us to be forewarned for the upcoming election too !
February 10th, 2012 | 6:59 pm
If we can get a rider that we also can get free chocolate ice cream, this man may just have won himself an election.
February 10th, 2012 | 7:35 pm
The compromise is: Religious organizations have the right not to provide health insurance which includes contraception. But they do not have the right to provide health insurance which does not include contraception.
It seems the question is, is the actuarial equivalence of contraception really zero or negative? (I.e., does it really cost the insurer more to exclude contraception than to include it?) If so, the health insurance companies can hardly be prohibited from contacting customers and offering them a provision which is mutually beneficial to both parties. If not, the “compromise” is indeed a fraud. But it seems likely it isn’t. Pregnancy and birth are very expensive to insure.
Who loses? Pharmacies, a little, because they sell to uninsured people at a higher price than to insurance companies. Maybe ob/gyn’s win, a little, because high-risk pregnancies drive their malpractice insurance costs up.
All in all, it looks like everybody should be happy.
February 10th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
Not correct. As discussed in another thread, adding coverage of contraception is revenue neutral. What the insurance company pays out in costs for contraception, it makes up for in paying for fewer unplanned pregnancies and associated costs.
But then the benefits for the fewer unplanned pregnancies as a result of contraceptive use is offset (plus some) by the increased risk-taking behavior of people who would not be having sex at all if not for the myths of contraception:
- granting people a false sense of security (because of the false belief that contraception prevents pregnancy – when in fact contraception only reduces the risk of pregnancy)
- granting women the false sense that pregnancy “doesn’t matter”, because it can be “taken care of later”
- creating a situation where women – and especially teenage girls – feel pressured to have sex as a result of
…..peer pressure
…..media pressure
…..pressure from would-be partners
…..pressure from “the competition problem”
(this is the phenomenon where a girl who wants a boy has to cope with the reality that the boy could have other girlfriends that “put out”, so she feels – accurately or inaccurately – that if she refuses him sex, he will find her less desirable)
Contraceptives don’t just reduce pregnancy, they also increase sexual risk-taking among people who are having sex for reasons other than the desire to procreate.
There is no reason to assume that contraceptives will pay for themselves. Any savings will be offset by disease and pregnancy, and the increase in “problem” pregnancies.
February 10th, 2012 | 8:14 pm
Does anybody really believe that forcing religious organizations to cover birth control products is actually going to affect birth rates? In a culture so permissive of such a practice, does anyone genuinely believe that someone is, all of the sudden, going to say, “AHA! Now I can go on the pill!”
It isn’t likely, which is precisely why insurers (of whom we insult if we figure they haven’t crunched the numbers) don’t make it free, as is.
The bottom line here: everybody’s going to be paying for it.
February 10th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
“Why is the Left so committed to the goal of free contraceptives for women?” Because they are committed to a lifestyle of no limits; because they are committed to the idea that one’s “sexuality” defines the meaning of one’s existence and that sexual expression is the be all and end all of life; because, ultimately, they’ve embraced the culture of death.
February 10th, 2012 | 9:52 pm
If Catholic institutions play along with the new rules, it seems they are complicit with the evil. Here’s why: in choosing a plan, the Catholic institution will have to ensure that it is genuinely choosing a plan that will provide the coverage for sterilization etc; if not, then the Catholic institution wouldn’t be fulfilling the law. Or so I’m guessing. And that means that the Catholic institution has to deliberately choose a plan in part on the basis of the fact that it will offer sterilization and so on. All the talk of the cash flow and so on is beside the point.
February 10th, 2012 | 10:28 pm
“Why is the Left so committed to the goal of free contraceptives for women?”
Because the Left has been at war with the traditional family for decades, and they will fight this war with any means at their disposal. Government mandated contraception, sterilization, and abortion takes this war against the family to a whole new level and makes it preemptive in nature.
February 10th, 2012 | 10:37 pm
Obama wants to enact gay marriage and free contraceptives for all.
And I thought Christians were sex obsessed.
February 10th, 2012 | 11:33 pm
Francis J. Beckwith:
You can’t reduce insurance scenarios down to two people. That isn’t how insurance works. Let me quote from a post on Vox Nova:
February 11th, 2012 | 9:09 am
There are several problems with the supposed compromise. First, the administration does not have the authority to order a private entity such as an insurance company to provide free benefits. So someone will have to pay. Either it will be the religious entities or it will be the rest of us whose premiums will rise so that the benefit will be paid for.
Secondly, this strikes me as similar to the ACA requirement that those with pre-existing conditions must be accepted by insurance plans yet the insurer cannot raise that individual’s premium. Guess what – the insurer will be paid and it will be premiums for the rest of us that will be raised.
I note that those opposing the Obama administration’s regulation on birth control are not citing for support the many other religious exemptions we allow: the Amish are not required to attend school nor will they be required to pay a fine if they don’t purchase health insurance when that portion of the law becomes effective, some Indians are allowed to take peyote, kids of certain religions are exempt from vaccination requirements, religious employers are exempt from eeo and ADA requirements in many cases, Quakers and some other religions are not required to swear oaths and may be excused from military service.
We have a long history of defining the free exercise clause – this history needs to be cited here.
February 11th, 2012 | 11:24 am
Mr. Beckwith writes:
“If the state requires Johnny to pay the insurance company for Suzie’s contraception, Johnny hasn’t ceased paying for Suzie’s contraception if Suzie’s contraceptive use reduces the insurance company’s costs.”
Bingo. I’m surprised that this has not occurred to David, who is generally a perceptive writer.
The insurance company is still paying for Plan B/ella/whathaveyou *up front* – and, presumably, passing that cost along to policy holders. What they won’t necessarily pass along will be any potential cost savings down the road from prevented/aborted pregnancies.
February 11th, 2012 | 1:56 pm
“But it seems likely it isn’t. Pregnancy and birth are very expensive to insure.”
Since Nickol hasn’t answered me, maybe you can. If free contraception is such a windfall for insurance companies, why don’t all policies provide for free contraception? You would think they would have figured that out long ago.
February 11th, 2012 | 1:59 pm
The whole notion that contraception is revenue neutral rests on the assumption that a significant percentage of women who really do not want to conceive children and already have a source of (personal or household) employment income, are going without effective contraception merely because it is isn’t employer-provided. And that the above is true to the extent that there are large pregnancy and birth related costs that would disappear if there were employer insurance provided contraception.
That has to be one of the worst working assumptions I’ve ever seen. If there are statistics to bring it out of the realm of assumption, I’d like to see them.
February 11th, 2012 | 2:01 pm
“Remember – the principle here is supposed to be religious liberty, not an indirect funding of contraception by dealing with insurance companies.”
Quoting Vox Nova on this issue — that is very funny. This is not an indirect funding of contraception. The employer is still paying for the policy that magically provides for the free contraception. I would advise you and your Vox Nova friends to go read the regulation itself and the isssuing statement — NOTHING CHANGED YESTERDAY.
February 11th, 2012 | 2:15 pm
Obama wants to enact gay marriage and free contraceptives for all.
joe,
A minor point in the overall discussion, but Obama has yet to support same-sex marriage. I wouldn’t be surprised if some day he changed his mind, but he is on record so far as not supporting it.
February 11th, 2012 | 2:45 pm
That has to be one of the worst working assumptions I’ve ever seen. If there are statistics to bring it out of the realm of assumption, I’d like to see them.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there are statistics showing that birth control more than pays for itself. It wouldn’t be hard to whip such things up.
But such a study is going to naturally favor the Left, because it is going to leave out all sorts of variables. As far as I know, there is no way yet to measure the “moral hazard” risks involved, and it’s unlikely the Left has even tried*. And there is reason to think that a number of unverifiable factors has an impact – at this point unmeasurable – on the cost-benefit analysis. (Does birth control lead to health problems? How much does one cancer patient cost relative to one pregnancy? Does abortion contribute to mental health issues? And so on).
_____
* The Left likes to rely on “zoom in” perspectives. If Suzy uses birth control and does not get pregnant, then that might be tallied as saving the cost of the pregnancy. But if Suzy does get pregnant, even though she was on the Pill, it is assumed she would have gotten pregnant anyway – and probably a lot sooner, because it is assumed that her level of sexual activity is a constant.
But is it a constant? If you stop zooming in at the “argumentum ad misericordium” level, and look at the panoramic larger picture (which is what policy making is supposed to be all about), you might see a pattern. In this case: sexual activity is not a constant, but is a variable that goes up and down depending on certain beliefs and social attitudes.
February 11th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
The insurance company is still paying for Plan B/ella/whathaveyou *up front* – and, presumably, passing that cost along to policy holders. What they won’t necessarily pass along will be any potential cost savings down the road from prevented/aborted pregnancies.
Richard M,
I believe I already answered that, thought the answer probably didn’t appear before you wrote your message. The money to pay claims comes from the insurance company. If a religious organization wants to be totally pure when it comes to supporting contraception, it must not merely buy a policy that doesn’t cover contraception. It must buy a policy from an insurance company that sells no policies that cover contraception. Say a religious organization is a new client of an insurance company, and by chance, right off the bat, its employees incur a lot of medical expenses. Say there is food poisoning in the company cafeteria the first day the policy is in effect. Those medical bills will not be paid with dollars the religious organization has paid in premiums. They will be paid from funds from the insurance company from holders of other policies. Or suppose the religious organization is a longstanding client and the insurance company has a brand new client that buys coverage including contraception and abortion. Some of the dollars from the religious organization that have gone into the insurance company’s “pot” will be used to pay for abortion and contraception for the new policy.
There is no way to avoid “remote material cooperation with evil” in 21st century America. The question how remote is remote enough.
I just pulled the following off of a Planned Parenthood web site:
The Coca-Cola company matches employee gifts to Planned Parenthood. If I buy Coke, am I contributing to abortion? Yes, in a real but small way, but then so is everyone reading this who has bought software from Microsoft.
February 11th, 2012 | 2:54 pm
If free contraception is such a windfall for insurance companies, why don’t all policies provide for free contraception?
Brian English,
What has been asserted is that adding contraceptive coverage is revenue neutral. It increases costs in some places and decreases them in others. It is not a matter of it being a big money-maker. And of course most employer-provided insurance already does cover contraception.
February 11th, 2012 | 3:03 pm
David writes: “You can’t reduce insurance scenarios down to two people. That isn’t how insurance works.”
David, in my scenario there were three people. Remember, Suzie was having an abortion.
Secondly, the quote from Vox Nova actually makes my point. Increasing the number of people does not change the moral principle. So, suppose the government coerces 5 million Johnnies to pay Insurance Company X so that it can pay for the abortions of 1000 Suzies. You still have the government coercing an economic transaction between private parties in violation of the conscience of many of the former.
Remember, Johnny’s money is his money. It is not the government’s. The government’s money is what it receives after it collects taxes. A prolife citizen may, for example, stop given money to the Komen Foundation because of it distributes some of its donations to Planned PArenthood. But imagine that HHS says that that citizen must, under penalty of law, donate to the Komen Foundation. You would, I hope, consider this an injustice. And it would not cease to an injustice if in retort you said, “Yes, but there are millions of citizens that are being forced to comply, not just one.” That would only make the injustice larger in scope. It would not all of a sudden make it just.
February 11th, 2012 | 3:16 pm
The usual wording is that Obama’s decision on gay marriage is mysteriously “evolving”. We await his diktat. I wonder what it will be?
February 11th, 2012 | 3:18 pm
And a good time was has by all! I didn’t know buying and using contraception was free because of the pregnancies that didn’t occur as a result. What an hilarious argument! Wait, you mean you were serious, David? You mean Obama is serious? What great examples for doublespeak! Well, we have to salvage something out of this. Can Obama actually believe this talk? I understood him to be very intelligent. Is he that cynical as well? This one takes my breath away.
Then there’s that side argument that the camel’s nose is already in the tent, so the tent owner is irrational to complain. There’s a reason this argument is also called the baloney approach. (“You already given me one slice, so you can’t object to another.”)
I’m with sally rogers, except…everyone knows that chocolate raises the libido resulting of course in more expensive pregnancies! So, the federal government now requires that all chocolate be sold with some form of contraceptive. It also requires such stores to buy stock in health care, so they can give away both. That way, the conscience rights of the insurers will not be violated. Of course, the store owners’ rights are not violated because the customer is the one making the decision.
February 11th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
Felapton writes:
If so, the health insurance companies can hardly be prohibited from contacting customers and offering them a provision which is mutually beneficial to both parties. If not, the “compromise” is indeed a fraud.
“Hardly be prohibited” is not the same as the Federal Government requiring a company to contact its customers to offer a “free” service.
February 11th, 2012 | 4:33 pm
I would advise you and your Vox Nova friends to go read the regulation itself and the isssuing statement — NOTHING CHANGED YESTERDAY.
Brian English,
You seem angry.
Catholic moral reasoning can be very subtle. For example, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, to remove the growing embryo implanted in the fallopian tube (when it should have implanted in the uterus) is strictly forbidden. However, to remove the whole fallopian tube, or a part of the fallopian tube, with the growing embryo attached is accepted. It dies both ways, but one way is equivalent to murder, and the other way is a justified medical procedure. I would suggest that in the case of the new proposal on insurance, some real changes were made. They may be subtle, and you may not be happy with them, but I think they need to be very carefully analyzed before you shout (i.e., use all caps to say) nothing has changed.
February 11th, 2012 | 5:58 pm
By the way, in England, 13 year old girls are being given birth control implants without their parents’ knowledge or consent:
Parents furious as 13-year-old girls given contraceptive implants at school without their knowledge\
Speaking of making women “healthier”.
February 11th, 2012 | 9:48 pm
David, I the other commenter’s point was that, legally, nothing changed with the announcement. The original rule is the operative one; the “compromise” announcement is a declaration of a plan to (maybe, after the election) revise the rule.
Also, you have not (unless I missed it) addressed the fact that the compromise does nothing for the (many, I gather) religious institutions who self-insure. Is it your view that it is a “compromise” to tell objecting institutions that they lose the ability to self-insure (even if self-insuring saves them and their employees lots of money)?
February 11th, 2012 | 9:59 pm
And a good time was has by all! I didn’t know buying and using contraception was free because of the pregnancies that didn’t occur as a result. What an hilarious argument! Wait, you mean you were serious, David?
Mike Melendez,
Let me just repeat part of what I posted in another thread. This is from the Washington Post:
Some of the evidence:
February 12th, 2012 | 2:53 am
Rick,
My understanding of the other commenter’s remark that nothing changed was not that the new proposal has no legal force, but that it is functionally and morally equivalent to the existing rule. I disagree with that. Obviously if the new proposal is intended only to try to dampen the controversy until after the election, and the existing rule is the one that will be enforced, then the Obama administration is engaging in a major deception by putting forward the new proposal. I don’t believe they are, however.
The matter of the self-insured is an unanswered question. I doubt that there are very many self-insured religious organizations, but I know there are some. And I know that some religious organizations went from buying insurance to self-insuring in order to escape state contraceptive mandates. Clearly something has to be worked out for the self-insured, and if it is not, then I will agree that the administration’s proposal is incomplete and not acceptable.
February 12th, 2012 | 2:15 pm
“Catholic moral reasoning can be very subtle.”
You consider that fraud on Friday to be an example of subtle Catholic moral reasoning? How could it be that the Bishops don’t concur?
“I would suggest that in the case of the new proposal on insurance, some real changes were made. They may be subtle, and you may not be happy with them, but I think they need to be very carefully analyzed before you shout (i.e., use all caps to say) nothing has changed.”
You can suggest whatever you like, but print out the regulation as it read on Thursday, and then print out the regulation as it appeared on Saturday. Not a comma has been changed. Read and comprehend. You don’t need to be Aquinas to figure this out.
February 12th, 2012 | 2:24 pm
“Some of the evidence:”
The evidence you and the Washington Post cite is evidence that EMPLOYERS save money by BUYING policies that cover contraception. You and the Obama Administration are claiming that insurance companies will just give contraception for free to the employees of Church-affiliated institutions, so the employers don’t have to pay for the contraception. Where is your evidence for that?
February 12th, 2012 | 7:06 pm
You can suggest whatever you like, but print out the regulation as it read on Thursday, and then print out the regulation as it appeared on Saturday. Not a comma has been changed. Read and comprehend. You don’t need to be Aquinas to figure this out.
Brian English,
The regulation—which doesn’t go into effect until August 2013 for religious employers—will be rewritten along the lines Obama announced. Obama did not promulgate a new regulation. He enunciated the principles by which the existing regulation will, when revised, deal with religious organizations.
February 12th, 2012 | 7:28 pm
You and the Obama Administration are claiming that insurance companies will just give contraception for free to the employees of Church-affiliated institutions, so the employers don’t have to pay for the contraception. Where is your evidence for that?
Brian English,
I am afraid I can’t provide evidence for something that is in the future and has not been worked out yet. The insurance industry seems a little wary:
Given, as I said above, that this does not go into effect until August 2013, there is plenty of time to work things out.
Here’s a question for you. Suppose that the insurance companies determine that the actual cost of policies they write for Catholic organizations, excluding coverage of contraception, would cost more if women were not getting contraception coverage at no cost from the insurance company. Should Catholic organizations refuse to pay less for coverage so that they are not benefiting from the reduced costs of their employees’s overall medical expenses because some of the women are using contraception in a way the organization finds objectionable?
February 12th, 2012 | 8:05 pm
@Mr. Nickol
The real cost of contraception is unknown, because we cannot know all the long term effects on women’s health over our lives. The serious side effects, especially the known link with cancer, require a view beyond a woman’s fertile years. The impact on women’s mental health from altered libido and uncontrollable mood swings, to name a few, are other concerns that are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify.
Not to mention the environmental change and impact on our whole population when we dump massive quantities of artificial hormones into our drinking water.
Or, say, our spiritual health. But let’s pretend I didn’t say that.
February 13th, 2012 | 7:12 am
I notice the studies as cited say the costs didn’t go up whereas the claims are that there may be a savings of up to 17%. Why didn’t the studies find that? What other causes were considered for the lack in change of costs? How do they know the new coverage was the cause? Were birth rates compared before and after? How about the trends? I notice at least one provider stated they offered it as an option _but_ not for free. Co-pays are involved.
Allow me to specify that contraception is, on the whole, fairly inexpensive. It’s direct affect on a policy price is going to be minimal to start with. But there is a cost and everyone will be paying it by the current plan. That’s what insurance does, spreads the cost. The charade that there is no cost (somehow the insurers are paying and recovering it later) and therefore the religious organizations are not providing the contraceptives boggles the mind.
Take off your blinders, David. There are other points of view here. The First Amendment is not just ink on paper.
February 13th, 2012 | 9:43 am
Take off your blinders, David. There are other points of view here. The First Amendment is not just ink on paper.
Mike,
The question of whether adding contraceptive coverage to existing insurance is cost neutral (or actually saves money) is not a First Amendment issue.
The overall question is whether the “accommodation” announced by Obama puts enough distance between employers who don’t want to provide coverage for contraception and the provision of contraceptive coverage by the employer’s insurance company independently and only to employees who contract for it. I think it does add a significant distance without breaking the link altogether, and some major Catholic organizations also think it does, but clearly the USCCB thinks it doesn’t.
There is more than a year left to work things out. Congress may pass legislation that prohibits the mandate. Courts might decide against it. Obama might not be reelected. I agree that it is an important issue, but it is not as if Christians will be fed to the lions tomorrow if nothing is done.
February 13th, 2012 | 10:08 am
“clearly the USCCB thinks it doesn’t. ”
Which is what matters. Freedom of conscience is only actually freedom of conscience if each gets to determine what his own conscience *is.* The government informing Joe or (USCCB) what their conscience should permit defies the meaning of the word “conscience.”
That is to say, the USCCB doesn’t get to decide what Joe’s conscience is, but Joe does get to agree with USCCB whether HHS or David Nickol thinks that’s a properly formed conscience, or not.
February 13th, 2012 | 10:30 am
“The regulation—which doesn’t go into effect until August 2013 for religious employers—will be rewritten along the lines Obama announced.”
Wrong. Read the regulation and the issuing statement. Nothing substantive has changed, nor will it change before the effective date. The only “change” is that the policies purchased by Church-affiliated institutions will now magically provide contraception coverage “free of charge” to both the employer and employee. That is a sham, and not even a very clever one.
February 13th, 2012 | 10:39 am
“I am afraid I can’t provide evidence for something that is in the future and has not been worked out yet. The insurance industry seems a little wary:”
What a surprise.
“An Aetna spokeswoman said the company “did not have any direct input into the actual policy decisions that were made.”
So the grand compromise was formulated without input from the Bishops or the insurance companies. Are people really going to give that band of incompetents down in Washington four more years in power?
“Should Catholic organizations refuse to pay less for coverage so that they are not benefiting from the reduced costs of their employees’s overall medical expenses because some of the women are using contraception in a way the organization finds objectionable?”
We don’t run a cost-benefit analysis, or take opinion polls, to arrive at our moral principles, as shocking as that may be to some.
February 13th, 2012 | 11:12 am
Which is what matters. Freedom of conscience is only actually freedom of conscience if each gets to determine what his own conscience *is.* The government informing Joe or (USCCB) what their conscience should permit defies the meaning of the word “conscience.”
pentamom,
Surely you don’t think religious liberty in the United States is such a simple matter that someone gets to say, “Complying with that law is a violation of my conscience,” and the government response is, “Okay, you have a First Amendment right not to comply with the law.”
The government can’t dictate what your conscience tells you, but it can and must decide whether a conscience claim is allowable. If a pacifist claims he won’t pay 60% of his taxes, because if he paid the full amount, 60% would go to the military, he has a perfectly good conscience claim. But if he doesn’t pay his taxes, he will eventually wind up in jail.
February 13th, 2012 | 1:17 pm
“If a pacifist claims he won’t pay 60% of his taxes, because if he paid the full amount, 60% would go to the military, he has a perfectly good conscience claim. But if he doesn’t pay his taxes, he will eventually wind up in jail.”
This is nothing like not paying your taxes. The government collects taxes and then spends that money on a wide variety of things. Here, individuals and entities are being ordered by the government to spend their money on insurance policies that will provide products that the individuals and entities regard as immoral.
February 13th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
This is nothing like not paying your taxes.
It is not my argument that the contraceptive mandate is similar to paying taxes. My point is that pentamom seems to be saying that if you have an objection of conscience to something, the government is barred by the First Amendment from making you comply. It is just nowhere near that simple. And of course the government in this case is not telling the bishops that providing contraception doesn’t and shouldn’t offend their consciences. The government can’t tell religious employers what to believe, but in some cases it can tell them what to do. We are in agreement, aren’t we, that claiming, or even clearly having, an objection of conscience does not automatically exempt a person from laws or government regulations?
February 13th, 2012 | 2:41 pm
“We are in agreement, aren’t we, that claiming, or even clearly having, an objection of conscience does not automatically exempt a person from laws or government regulations?”
Who is claiming that? Catholics are objecting to this regulation. We are not saying we can just ignore it.
February 13th, 2012 | 2:55 pm
“My point is that pentamom seems to be saying that if you have an objection of conscience to something, the government is barred by the First Amendment from making you comply. It is just nowhere near that simple. ”
No, I think it’s been pointed out here quite often enough to be part of the context, that there is a compelling interest test. We all share that assumption.
There’s just no compelling interest here, or if there is, it’s yet to be demonstrated or proven. “It would be nice for non-indigent women who want to use birth control not to have to spend quite so much on birth control out of their own pockets” is not quite on the level of national defense or other things that have been recognized as legitimate compelling interests.
Besides, this isn’t about “not having to pay for” things you don’t want to pay. It’s about not have to buy things on the private market whose use you’re opposed to. Taxation is a different category from “you must go out and spend your own funds to buy this thing for someone else.”
February 13th, 2012 | 3:55 pm
David Nickol:
As I said to you in another combox: It is absurd to say that giving away contraceptives and morning-after pills and performing sterlizations would not cost more for insurance companies. The only way this would cost less or be “cost neutral” is if the women not currently covered were having babies every two or three years, and that pregnancy rate was suddenly cut. Perhaps that was once the case. But these days US women who don’t have birth control given to them for free seem to be able to get it just fine. So it would be an expense. This is a ridiculous argument and I can’t believe you are still making it.
February 13th, 2012 | 4:21 pm
This is a ridiculous argument and I can’t believe you are still making it.
Gail Finke:
Where is your data? I presented the results of real-world studies that showed adding contraception to insurance either didn’t change the costs or lowered them. Why is it that adding contraceptive coverage for all federal employees did not raise costs?
February 13th, 2012 | 4:37 pm
pentamom,
“Compelling interest” does not mean the country is doomed to nuclear annihilation if the government doesn’t act. Also, besides the compelling interest test, the government action must impose a “substantial burden.” I think it can be argued that there is a compelling interest, and that there is not a substantial burden. I don’t understand why you don’t see a 49% unintended pregnancy rate (resulting in 1.3 million abortions per year) as a significant problem.
I will present the health data behind the recommendations yet again:
February 13th, 2012 | 6:26 pm
“Why is it that adding contraceptive coverage for all federal employees did not raise costs?”
You are confusing costs savings to an employer with cost savings to an insurance company again.
February 13th, 2012 | 6:32 pm
“Also, besides the compelling interest test, the government action must impose a “substantial burden.”
The government does not have a compelling interest in seeing that all women employed by Church-affiliated individuals or entities get free contraception. And forcing individuals or entities to act in conflict with their religious beliefs is obviously a substantial burden–it violates the Constitution.
February 13th, 2012 | 7:49 pm
“I don’t understand why you don’t see a 49% unintended pregnancy rate (resulting in 1.3 million abortions per year) as a significant problem.”
Which has what to do with whether women who can mostly already afford contraception need to get it paid by someone else as a “compelling public interest?”
You realize that piled into that question is an enormous assumption that the lack of employer-paid contraception is to any degree responsible for the abortion rate, or else that getting contraception paid out of pocket would reduce that rate. Is there any demonstrable evidence (sufficient to overcome the substantial burden of violating a long-established, core religious belief) that that is true?
February 13th, 2012 | 8:07 pm
And forcing individuals or entities to act in conflict with their religious beliefs is obviously a substantial burden–it violates the Constitution.
Brian English,
It’s not at all clear whether the contraceptive mandate violates the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and, in particular Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Employment Division v Smith. See this article. That is why some people are pinning their hopes on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Supreme Court did away with the “compelling interest” test. It is no longer a test for constitutionality, but rather a test mandated by RFRA, which has been declared unconstitutional as applied to the states and is basically untested at the federal level.
I am not going to get into an argument over the meaning of “compelling interest” or “substantial burden,” because those are technical legal terms. I will just say that I have read opinions that the state does indeed have a compelling interest to promulgate the regulation in question without granting exceptions, and neither the old regulation nor the modified new one Obama announced placed a substantial burden on religious organizations.
Opinions are very strong on both sides, and I wouldn’t want to place any bets on what would happen if this goes to the Supreme Court.
February 14th, 2012 | 8:16 am
“It’s not at all clear whether the contraceptive mandate violates the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and, in particular Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in Employment Division v Smith. See this article.”
Smith was the case the Adminstration thought would win Hosanna-Tabor for them. How did that work out?
And I continue to be amazed that people like you and those who commented on the article you linked to fail to see any difference between a couple of guys arguing that drug laws shouldn’t apply to them and this situation where the government is ordering Church-affiliated entities and individuals to purchase insurance policies that will provide what they regard as immoral services. How do you conclude that accepting that type of government coercion is not going to end very badly?
February 14th, 2012 | 11:25 am
You realize that piled into that question is an enormous assumption that the lack of employer-paid contraception is to any degree responsible for the abortion rate, or else that getting contraception paid out of pocket would reduce that rate. Is there any demonstrable evidence (sufficient to overcome the substantial burden of violating a long-established, core religious belief) that that is true?
I am still waiting for an explanation of why, if birth control is so effective at reducing unwanted pregnancy, the unwanted pregnancy rates from any given year last decade or this decade are higher – rather than lower – than any given year from before the first year The Pill was introduced.
February 14th, 2012 | 11:47 am
people like you
Brian English,
My previous post objecting to your use of “people like you” for some reason did not appear. I hope this makes it through.
February 14th, 2012 | 11:57 am
Blake,
Can you give us the figures you are using for unplanned pregnancies before the introduction of the pill in 1960?
February 14th, 2012 | 2:43 pm
David,
The following is from a February 21, 2009 op-ed by Will Saletan in the New York Times:
“Eight years ago, the Alan Guttmacher Institute surveyed over 10,000 American women who had abortions. Nearly half said they hadn’t used birth control in the month they conceived. When asked why not, 8 percent cited financial problems, and 2 percent said they didn’t know where to get it. By comparison, 28 percent said they had thought they wouldn’t get pregnant, 26 percent said they hadn’t expected to have sex and 23 percent said they had never thought about using birth control, had never gotten around to it or had stopped using it. Ten percent said their partners had objected to it. Three percent said they had thought it would make sex less fun.
This isn’t a shortage of pills or condoms. It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility. It’s a failure to teach, understand, admit or care that unprotected sex can lead to the creation — and the subsequent killing, through abortion — of a developing human being.”
Lack of access to contraception has very little to do with the number of unplanned pregnancies in this country. Contraception is widely available, is relatively cheap, and is even handed out for free in many areas. It is a bit of stretch to suggest that forcing religious-run institutions to pay for contraception for its employees would make any sort of dent in the number of unplanned pregnancies. To say nothing of how this imposition would violate the consciences of those affected.
February 14th, 2012 | 6:01 pm
This isn’t a shortage of pills or condoms. It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility. It’s a failure to teach, understand, admit or care . . .
Tim,
Saletan is a very credible source on this topic, and I am very much in agreement with him. All the contraceptives in the world won’t do any good unless people use them. But I think a good argument can be made that fully integrating contraception into women’s health care provides the opportunity to teach that Saletan is talking about. As we know, about half of women in any given year who procure an abortion have had at least one abortion already. I would certainly hope that a woman who is under a doctor’s care and has had an unintended pregnancy, and possibly an abortion, would be counseled by her doctor to use some form of contraception or do something to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
February 14th, 2012 | 7:43 pm
David,
That’s fair enough, and I fully agree with your last statement. I just don’t see how forcing Catholic employers to provide contraception will make a statistically-significant difference in the number of unintended pregnancies there are in this country. I also seriously doubt that there are many women who work for Catholic agencies who have had multiple abortions. Those women tend to be poor, and would then have recourse to contraception through Title X, free contraception via Planned Parenthood, etc. I don’t see this mandate even coming close to meeting the highest threshold demanded by the Supreme Court. But we’ll find out I suppose.
February 15th, 2012 | 1:15 pm
That’s fair enough, and I fully agree with your last statement. I just don’t see how forcing Catholic employers to provide contraception will make a statistically-significant difference in the number of unintended pregnancies there are in this country.
The point is not about reducing unwanted pregnancies.
The point is that Obama needs to pick a fight with the Catholic church, because he can’t win unless he’s running against an enemy he can demonize…and his voters enjoy hating Catholics. It makes them feel good.
February 15th, 2012 | 1:18 pm
I would certainly hope that a woman who is under a doctor’s care and has had an unintended pregnancy, and possibly an abortion, would be counseled by her doctor to use some form of contraception or do something to avoid unwanted pregnancy.
Why do you believe that women who have multiple abortions are doing it because they don’t have knowledge of or access to birth control?
Do you have anything at all to support this weird idea?
February 15th, 2012 | 1:32 pm
I will present the health data behind the recommendations yet again:
PREVENTING UNINTENDED PREGNANCY AND PROMOTING HEALTHY BIRTH SPACING
Except that no matter how many times you present the same arguments from the same overtly ideological sources yet again, as long as you avoid actually refuting the points being presented in rebuttal, you’re just wasting everyone’s time and space.
February 15th, 2012 | 1:33 pm
you’re just wasting everyone’s time and space.
…well, I mean, except Obama’s.
Since this entire debate hinges on getting us to think of this as a health issue instead of a religious freedom issue.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact