The New York Times published a good article a few days ago that provides an overview of the storm of lawsuits over the contraceptive mandate.
When I read and think about this issue, I keep coming back to three things that seem to me quite salient but do not get as much play as I'd like:
First, before the ACA's contraceptive mandate, almost 30 states had similar mandates under state law. The Catholic Church and other organizations have already been living with this. Several Catholic colleges and universities have supplied-- and supply-- coverage for birth control. This idea that religious organizations and their followers can't live lives of religious freedom under a contraceptive mandate is clearly false! I don't understand why this fact does not get more attention-- and is not advertised more by the Obama Administration.
Second, the Catholic Church is fine with government involvement in religion when it swings their way. Did you know that in Germany, to take one example, citizens are assessed a religion tax that is then channeled to different religious organizations, including the Catholic Church? The Church is obviously quite comfortable influencing the state of policy in countries like Ireland, Malta, and Poland. And in the United States itself, millions of taxpayers dollars and many government resources are given each year to Catholic Church-affiliated organizations, such as Catholic charities and schools. Note that all of this money going to religious organizations directly or indirectly frees up the religious organizations' other money to pay for religious activities that might be in conflict with the beliefs of taxpayers, such as Church opposition to gay rights.
Third, many religious organizations self-insure. One of the accommodations provided by the Obama Administration is to require health insurers to pay for all contraceptive coverage in their health care plans, so that no religious employer money is directly paying for birth control. I think this accommodation is excellent and should quiet any qualms religious organizations have, if they don't want to be hypocritical (see point #2, above). The one major problem with this accommodation is that many organizations self-insure, so that there is no firewall between organization and insurer. Because of this problem, the Obama Administration needs to a) find some other type of accommodation, b) allow self-insured organizations to avoid providing birth control coverage, which would then allow religious organizations to self-insure and fully avoid the mandate, or c) stick to its guns but make point #1 more forcefully-- you say you can't live with this? You already have!
What do you think? Is there anything that you feel is underreported when it comes to the mandate fight?
Links:
Article in The New York Times (January 26, 2013): A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control
When I read and think about this issue, I keep coming back to three things that seem to me quite salient but do not get as much play as I'd like:
First, before the ACA's contraceptive mandate, almost 30 states had similar mandates under state law. The Catholic Church and other organizations have already been living with this. Several Catholic colleges and universities have supplied-- and supply-- coverage for birth control. This idea that religious organizations and their followers can't live lives of religious freedom under a contraceptive mandate is clearly false! I don't understand why this fact does not get more attention-- and is not advertised more by the Obama Administration.
Second, the Catholic Church is fine with government involvement in religion when it swings their way. Did you know that in Germany, to take one example, citizens are assessed a religion tax that is then channeled to different religious organizations, including the Catholic Church? The Church is obviously quite comfortable influencing the state of policy in countries like Ireland, Malta, and Poland. And in the United States itself, millions of taxpayers dollars and many government resources are given each year to Catholic Church-affiliated organizations, such as Catholic charities and schools. Note that all of this money going to religious organizations directly or indirectly frees up the religious organizations' other money to pay for religious activities that might be in conflict with the beliefs of taxpayers, such as Church opposition to gay rights.
Third, many religious organizations self-insure. One of the accommodations provided by the Obama Administration is to require health insurers to pay for all contraceptive coverage in their health care plans, so that no religious employer money is directly paying for birth control. I think this accommodation is excellent and should quiet any qualms religious organizations have, if they don't want to be hypocritical (see point #2, above). The one major problem with this accommodation is that many organizations self-insure, so that there is no firewall between organization and insurer. Because of this problem, the Obama Administration needs to a) find some other type of accommodation, b) allow self-insured organizations to avoid providing birth control coverage, which would then allow religious organizations to self-insure and fully avoid the mandate, or c) stick to its guns but make point #1 more forcefully-- you say you can't live with this? You already have!
What do you think? Is there anything that you feel is underreported when it comes to the mandate fight?
Links:
Article in The New York Times (January 26, 2013): A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control
Comments