During the second presidential debate, President Obama promoted the idea of requiring most employee health care plans to offer free contraception. Mitt Romney's response was as follows (from The Washington Post):
As a way of ducking an issue, this was a nice flip-around: I'm going to pitch the contraceptive mandate as an example of government and employer coercion of women. In reality, however, the contraceptive mandate is the opposite of what Mitt Romney implied about it.
The contraceptive mandate simply requires health care plans to offer women the option to access free contraception. The contraceptive provision, therefore, enhances the ability of women to freely decide whether or not to use contraceptives.
Regarding employers, Romney's statement is actually an argument for the contraceptive mandate of the ACA. As things stand now, employers can refuse to provide a health care plan to employees that provides free coverage of contraception. That sounds a lot like an employer telling "someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not"-- or, at the least, it leaves it up to women to access contraceptives on their own dime. By forcing employers to allow women to get contraceptives for free through their health care plan, the ACA prevents what supposedly worries Mitt Romney.
Links:
Washington Post recap of the second presidential debate (October 16, 2012): Obama goes on offensive, turns debate into argument with Romney
“I’d just note that I don’t believe that bureaucrats in Washington should tell someone whether they can use contraceptives or not,” Romney said. “And I don’t believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care of not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives.”This just does not compute. In what way does the ACA's contraception mandate require women to use contraceptives or give the government the power to deny women access to contraceptives? In what way do employers under the ACA gain the power to deny women contraceptive care?
As a way of ducking an issue, this was a nice flip-around: I'm going to pitch the contraceptive mandate as an example of government and employer coercion of women. In reality, however, the contraceptive mandate is the opposite of what Mitt Romney implied about it.
The contraceptive mandate simply requires health care plans to offer women the option to access free contraception. The contraceptive provision, therefore, enhances the ability of women to freely decide whether or not to use contraceptives.
Regarding employers, Romney's statement is actually an argument for the contraceptive mandate of the ACA. As things stand now, employers can refuse to provide a health care plan to employees that provides free coverage of contraception. That sounds a lot like an employer telling "someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not"-- or, at the least, it leaves it up to women to access contraceptives on their own dime. By forcing employers to allow women to get contraceptives for free through their health care plan, the ACA prevents what supposedly worries Mitt Romney.
Links:
Washington Post recap of the second presidential debate (October 16, 2012): Obama goes on offensive, turns debate into argument with Romney
Comments