Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage

[WillowTree]

Another attack by the right on women's rights.

some mo talkin points..

 

[sealybobo]

It will be overturned eventually, because it's bad case law.

And yes, my wife and I did.

Society is not moving in that direction. The right keep pushing and keep trying but they only get away with anti abortion laws in red states.

Actually, Rick Snyder in Michigan has pushed through a ban on partial birth abortion but that's because the GOP control all three branches of Michigan Government. Even though Michigan voted for Clinton, Gore and Obama, we are now a very red state. But Michiganders are not happy with Snyder and hopefully we take back both houses in November.

But banning abortion for women in their first trimester? That will never pass. Its too popular. Most women want the right to choose.

It always looks darkest right before the breaking dawn. There is a spiritual awakening occurring in the United States and the world. One to rival, and likely to surpass, the first two Great Awakenings in magnitude and scope.

And overturning Roe v. Wade will not ban abortion. It will just return the issue to the States as the 10th Amendment proscribes.

How about government stay out of it? State and Federal.

The right tried all this during FDR and Truman and they were unsuccessful. Nothing new with what the right is trying to do today. The right relies on the hope that the American people aren't paying attention. The right loves the fact that only 30% of Americans vote. But whenever the right over reaches, that is when voters show up and vote down the rights radical agenda. Great example is Ohio where more people showed up to vote in favor of collective bargaining than did to show up for the vote for the Governor who tried to take away collective bargaining. And Ohio tends to be a red state.

So when attacked, the masses will show up to vote. And the GOP are on full assult with their radical agenda. Its the Koch brothers agenda. Do you have any idea how bad Herman Cain's 999 plan would be for most Americans? Well we do. It would have been great for the rich though.

The last real great spiritual awakening was during the 60's. Trust me, we are not getting more conservative. The 99%ers represent the masses. The tea party represents millionaires and the conservative minority. The 99%'ers make the tea party look like a joke.

Or do you mean the Ron Paul type revolution where you destroy government and let the corporations run the country?

 

[Amelia]

Who's clueless? The majority of people who are ok with birth control or right wing radicals that have extreme views that the majority of us disagree with?

The issue isnt at all about birth control. I suspect you know that.

The issue is the government trying to tell people of faith to do things contrary to their beliefs. The issue is government specifically targetting people of faith.

It's also about the assurances Obama gave faithful Democrats to get them to pass his healthcare legislation. He couldn't have gotten that done if he had been up front about this.

The Constitution & integrity are nothing to him. He is a dangerous man.

 

[sealybobo]

Who's clueless? The majority of people who are ok with birth control or right wing radicals that have extreme views that the majority of us disagree with?

The issue isnt at all about birth control. I suspect you know that.

The issue is the government trying to tell people of faith to do things contrary to their beliefs. The issue is government specifically targetting people of faith.

How? Explain to me the situation. Is the government forcing Catholic run hospitals to give abortions?

If they receive government money and they accept comprehensive heatlhcare that includes contraception, do they have to provide it?

Explain this assult on religion that is being perpetrated by Obama.

 

[Annie]

By Sahil Kapur

Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration’s birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

“Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio’s bill and all the employer would have to do is say it’s for a religious reason,” said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is no test to prove eligibility. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”

The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration’s exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to “not just Catholic employers — to all employers.”

Rubio’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

More: Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC

I'll not pretend for a moment that I can see where this will all end up, but I'm pretty sure this wouldn't have happened without the Obama nonsense. Talk about pissing off Catholics!

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm not going to go through 12 pages of bullshit to say this... You people who want others to pay for your idiotic, uncontrollable, hormonic urges can crawl up my leg and have a ball!!

Nobody asked you to spread your legs like a $3 buffet, and nobody wants to deal with the gaseous result of your stupidity.

Fucking GOD DAMNED parasites, you sick FUCKS!!

 

[Avatar4321]

why don't you take your atheist ass and run away to China?

Why should I? I'm Native American, we have a Godless Constitution, and George Washington's "Treaty of Tripoli"...

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

george washington had nothing to do with the treaty of tripoli

Sadly, he didnt even bother to read the link he quoted.

 

[Lakhota]

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years

By Nick Baumann

The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling.

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

 

[Avatar4321]

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years

By Nick Baumann

The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling.

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is completely true. That it's actually Bush that's responsible for the policy Obama is enforcing.

So what?

Are you honestly suggesting that if a Republican enacts legislation that allows the government to force people to act contrary to their religious views that it's somehow alright? Newsflash: It's not.

You seem to imagine that we are playing the petty partisan bullcrap games you are. We aren't. It doesn't matter what party enacts policies that take away our God given rights, it's wrong.

Stop projecting yourself onto us and start listening to what we are actually saying.

 

[Lakhota]

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

How do Catholics feel about Viagra being covered but not prescription contraceptives?

That's rather hilarious the more I think about it...

 

[Ed Spacer]

I'm not going to go through 12 pages of bullshit to say this... You people who want others to pay for your idiotic, uncontrollable, hormonic urges can crawl up my leg and have a ball!!

Nobody asked you to spread your legs like a $3 buffet, and nobody wants to deal with the gaseous result of your stupidity.

Fucking GOD DAMNED parasites, you sick FUCKS!!

Preach on,preach on..

 

[sealybobo]

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years

By Nick Baumann

The right has freaked out over an Obama administration rule requiring employers to offer birth control to their employees. Most companies already had to do that.

President Barack Obama's decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

Despite the longstanding precedent, "no one screamed" until now, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law expert at George Washington University.

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today—and because it relies on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. Employers that don't offer prescription coverage or don't offer insurance at all are exempt, because they treat men and women equally—but under the EEOC's interpretation of the law, you can't offer other preventative care coverage without offering birth control coverage, too.

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

After the EEOC opinion was approved in 2000, reproductive rights groups and employees who wanted birth control access sued employers that refused to comply. The next year, in Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., a federal court agreed with the EEOC's reasoning. Reproductive rights groups and others used that decision as leverage to force other companies to settle lawsuits and agree to change their insurance plans to include birth control. Some subsequent court decisions echoed Erickson, and some went the other way, but the rule (absent a Supreme Court decision) remained, and over the following decade, the percentage of employer-based plans offering contraceptive coverage tripled to 90 percent.

"We have used [the EEOC ruling] many times in negotiating with various employers," says Judy Waxman, the vice president for health and reproductive rights at the National Women's Law Center. "It has been in active use all this time. [President Obama's] policy is only new in the sense that it covers employers with less than 15 employees and with no copay for the individual. The basic rule has been in place since 2000."

Not even religious employers were exempt from the impact of the EEOC decision. Although Title VII allows religious institutions to discriminate on religious grounds, it doesn't allow them to discriminate on the basis of sex—the kind of discrimination at issue in the EEOC ruling.

As recently as last year, the EEOC was moderating a dispute between the administrators of Belmont Abbey, a Catholic institution in North Carolina, and several of its employees who had their birth control coverage withdrawn after administrators realized it was being offered. The Weekly Standard opined on the issue in 2009—more proof that religious employers were being asked to cover contraception far before the Obama administration issued its new rule on January 20 of this year.

"The current freakout," Judy Waxman says, is largely occurring because the EEOC policy "isn't as widely known…and it hasn't been uniformly enforced." But it's still unclear whether Obama's Health and Human Services department will enforce the new rule any more harshly than the old one. The administration has already given organizations a year-long grace period to comply. Asked to explain how the agency would make employers do what it wanted, an HHS official told Mother Jones that it would "enforce this the same way we enforce everything else in the law."

Most of Obama's "Controversial" Birth Control Rule Was Law During Bush Years | Mother Jones

Let's say for the sake of argument that this is completely true. That it's actually Bush that's responsible for the policy Obama is enforcing.

So what?

Are you honestly suggesting that if a Republican enacts legislation that allows the government to force people to act contrary to their religious views that it's somehow alright? Newsflash: It's not.

You seem to imagine that we are playing the petty partisan bullcrap games you are. We aren't. It doesn't matter what party enacts policies that take away our God given rights, it's wrong.

Stop projecting yourself onto us and start listening to what we are actually saying.

I don't want the Catholic Cult interfering with my healthcare options. If they accept federal dollars then they can't be pushing their radical agenda.

Don't own an abortion clinic if you are anti abortion.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't want the Catholic Cult interfering with my healthcare options. If they accept federal dollars then they can't be pushing their radical agenda.

Don't own an abortion clinic if you are anti abortion.

But you want politicians in Washington to? That's literally insane.

 

[Lakhota]

This is yet another example of how vicious right-wingers can be:

CPAC: Cal Thomas Says Rachel Maddow The 'Best Argument' For Contraception (VIDEO)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUk4b-CodLY&feature=player_embedded]Cal Thomas Says Rachel Maddow Is Good Argument For Contraception - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sarah G]

By Sahil Kapur

Legislation introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to reverse the Obama administration’s birth control rule would effectively permit any employer to deny contraception coverage in their employee health plans, critics note.

“Any employer could deny birth control coverage under Rubio’s bill and all the employer would have to do is say it’s for a religious reason,” said Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the liberal Center for American Progress. “There is no test to prove eligibility. It’s a loophole you could drive a truck through.”

The Rubio bill, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, comes in response to a Catholic firestorm over the fact that the administration’s exemption on its birth control rule does not include religious hospitals and universities along with churches. But this bill appears to go far beyond that, permitting any employer to claim the religious exemption without a criteria.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters Thursday the measure would grant the exemption to “not just Catholic employers — to all employers.”

Rubio’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

More: Rubio Bill Lets ANY Employer Deny Birth Control Coverage | TPMDC

And the teapartier within finally comes out of Rubio. This bill won't go anywhere and Rubio has effectively sunk the catholic church argument that contraception should be denied.

Rubio has taken it to an absurd level and started yet another never ending and divisive fight.

Nice going, Rubio.

 

[Lakhota]

"It was, we thought at the time, a fairly straightforward application of Title VII principles," a top former EEOC official who was involved in the decision told Mother Jones. "All of these plans covered Viagra immediately, without thinking, and they were still declining to cover prescription contraceptives. It's a little bit jaw-dropping to see what is going on now…There was some press at the time but we issued guidances that were far, far more controversial."

How do Catholics feel about Viagra being covered but not prescription contraceptives?

That's rather hilarious the more I think about it...

But I bet Rubio's bill doesn't deny Viagra coverage. Just more gender discrimination.

 

[Lakhota]

Students At Catholic Colleges Protest Lack Of Access To Birth Control

 

[Barb]

What does birth control have to do with health?

What does control over reproductive health decisions have to do with health? Are you serious?

Spacing children through effective family planning reduces infant mortality. “By spacing births at least two years apart, family planning can prevent an average of one in four infant deaths.” Finally, reducing unmet need reduces unintended pregnancy. That reduces the occurrence of both legal and illegal abortion, and saves the lives of mothers and their children who are already born.

 

[Stephanie]

Know won is ever going two overturn row vs wade. Abortion is not murder. Its a seed. Did you pay four a funeral when you had a miscarrage?

It will be overturned eventually, because it's bad case law.

And yes, my wife and I did.

Society is not moving in that direction. The right keep pushing and keep trying but they only get away with anti abortion laws in red states.

Actually, Rick Snyder in Michigan has pushed through a ban on partial birth abortion but that's because the GOP control all three branches of Michigan Government. Even though Michigan voted for Clinton, Gore and Obama, we are now a very red state. But Michiganders are not happy with Snyder and hopefully we take back both houses in November.

But banning abortion for women in their first trimester? That will never pass. Its too popular. Most women want the right to choose.

wow, what's that say about a SOCIETY who see abortion (the killing of ones own child), as too Popular. you abortion fanatics are sick.

 

[FA_Q2]

Rubio’s spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Who could blame him, his boss is an idiot.

But Rubio has managed to raise his little flag of rightist extremism for all the Nation to see.

How, exactly, is giving businesses option in the HC they offer extremism? It is extreme to require that businesses fit YOUR beliefs instead of allowing them their own.

They are buying them. Employer provided prescription drug plans are given as PAYMENT FOR WORK.

Why is that so hard to understand? Why do you people insist on destroying every shred of my rapidly diminishing faith in my fellow humans' ability to think?

Exactly, and that means the business chooses what compensation he offers the employee who then agrees or does not take the job. Where in the hell do you get off requiring the employer to offer what YOU want to the employee. It is not your place, hell, it is not even the employees place beyond accepting the given compensation, not accepting it or negotiating a better one.

What if you like your job but not your insurance?

What if you like your insurance but not your job?

Baring a single payer option, it makes sense to be paid more and be able to buy health coverage on your own.

Can you imagine if you had to buy your car insurance and your appliance maintenance agreements from the one company your employer made an 'arrangement' with?

Surely that sounds stupid to someone besides me.

Agreed - employers offering HC plans is one of the central reasons the system is broken in the first place.
The customer (the employer) goes to the insurance company who services him with the cheapest plan that he can use to attract good employees. His major concern is cost. The employee is the beneficiary. His major concern is coverage and service. Unfortunately, because he is NOT the customer, his interests are never represented and what we end up with is a system that does not care about the beneficiaries and competition is never based on the quality of the plans as the customer never deals with that part of the transaction.

The admin's stance on reproductive coverage and Catholic institutions is a loser. (1) It infringes on church and state separation. (2) It will, and should, rile up the conservative base.

However, Rubio's legislation is as big government, statist and progressive as the left's in his right wing proposal to use the political process to institute a religious exemption without qualification. That is as prohibited constitutionally as is Obama's admin's proposal.

Bullshit. Government mandating what is and is not covered is big government statist bullshit. His proposal - giving the choices BACK to the consumer is the EXACT opposite. What in the hell makes you think that giving the choice to the consumer is big government and somehow mandating those converges through government is small government.

I don't want the Catholic Cult interfering with my healthcare options. If they accept federal dollars then they can't be pushing their radical agenda.

Don't own an abortion clinic if you are anti abortion.

And The Catholic Church does not want to be involved with your heath decisions either. Unfortunately, YOU want to be involved with the Catholic Churches health decision by MANDATING they offer specific coverage they do not wish to offer. You are not forced to do anything yet you complain they are getting in your HC? That is a huge logical back flip.

How do Catholics feel about Viagra being covered but not prescription contraceptives?

That's rather hilarious the more I think about it...

Why? Catholics are not against sex. They are against contraceptives. Their support, while not making any sense to someone that does not believe as they do, makes perfect sense within their own dogma.