New Obamacare birth control rules seek middle ground

Updated at 2 p.m. ET

Responding to complaints from religiously-affiliated groups, the Obama administration today proposed new health insurance rules for covering the cost of birth control, laying out a plan to ensure coverage without compelling faith-based organizations to pay for it.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration sought to balance two principles in its rule-making: "We had to ensure that women have access to preventive services like contraception and that the policy respects religious beliefs," he said.

The Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide full health care coverage for contraception, though the rule exempts houses of worship like churches or synagogues. However, other nonprofits with religious affiliations -- such as, for instance, a Catholic university -- were expected to comply. The Obama administration faces several lawsuits over the issue.

Under the new proposed rules, such non-profit religious organizations would have to ensure that enrollees of their health care plans get full contraception coverage, but they would not have to pay for it -- a health insurer would pay for it.

"Today, the administration is taking the next step in providing women across the nation with coverage of recommended preventive care at no cost, while respecting religious concerns," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement. "We will continue to work with faith-based organizations, women's organizations, insurers and others to achieve these goals."

• Sotomayor refuses to block morning-after pill rule
• Atty: Hobby Lobby won't offer morning-after pill
• Thousands search for doctors after Texas Planned Parenthood ban upheld

The faith-based organizations in question would have to notify their insurer or third-party administrator if they objected to paying for contraception costs on faith-based grounds. The insurer would then have to provide enrollees with no-cost contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies.

The HHS says that insurers should find providing contraceptive coverage cost neutral, since preventive services like birth control lower overall health costs.

Meanwhile, self-insured religious organizations would find an insurer to cover the cost through its third party administrator. To pay for those costs, the insurer would get a deduction in the fees it must pay to join the federally-facilitated health exchange that will be up and running next year.

The new proposed rules also simplify the definition of "religious employer," making it easier to identify groups completely exempt from the contraception coverage requirement. The new definition, however, relying on IRS tax category, is not expected to expand the number of exempted groups.

Reactions to the new proposed rules today were mixed. In his initial response, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, sounded cautiously optimistic: "We welcome the opportunity to study the proposed regulations closely," he said.

However, the conservative Family Research Council said it strongly opposes the new proposed rules. "The accounting gimmicks HHS is now proposing under the latest regulation fail to satisfy the religious freedom protections that exist in other current laws and in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution," Anna Higgins, director of FRC's Center for Human Dignity, said in a statement.

The Catholic Association similarly chalked up the rules to an accounting gimmick. "Catholic institutions and other faith based organizations, including hospitals and universities and private employers, still do not get their 1st Amendment rights back and are still being forced to either violate their faith or pay crippling government fines for practicing their faith," the organization said in a statement.

Reproductive rights groups, meanwhile, have so far responded positively. NARAL Pro-Choice America said the new draft regulations should help achieve near-universal contraceptive coverage.

"Today's draft regulation affirms yet again the Obama administration's commitment to fulfilling the full promise of its historic contraception policy," NARAL president Ilyse Hogue said in a statement. "Increased access to birth control is a huge win for women and is necessary to prevent unintended pregnancy--a goal on which both pro-choice and anti-choice people ought to agree."

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said her organization is still reviewing the technical aspects of the proposed rules but that the principle is clear. "This policy makes it clear that your boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control," she said.

The new proposed rules are open for public comment through April 8.

[Social_Adjudicator]

These religiously-affiliated groups are sadly tax exempt but not legally exempt.

[Social_Adjudicator]

louiville12, "Religious" beliefs are too broad to govern a country around. The religious institutions just want the privilege of having their cake and eating it to; they are all about hiding money.

[Lindag20]

I'm tired of CBS being so slow and Mortar calling everyone he disagrees with a "liar". See you.

[Lindag20]

Things seem to be a bit dull now that Dan's gone. I think I'll go read some more crap at conservapedia. I loved the bit about Noah taking dinosaurs in the ark. All I could think of was "Jurassic Park in the Ark". See you.

[Lindag20]

bsrasmus1 replies: They only have to obey the constitutional laws.
--------------------
That's a pretty weak argument as the SCOTUS found the law the churches are refusing to obey CONSTITUTIONAL.

[bsrasmus1]

There is a *much* simpler and *much* better solution. All women should have access to birth-control, if they desire it, and they should individually pay for it themselves. Problem solved.

[Lindag20]

Why does a business owned by a religious group get to pick and choose which laws they'll obey?

[alanrobisch]

Why do we have a law mandating what must be covered? Its the government taking away personal freedom in the name of the alleged greater good

[Ambivalent11]

legalbutunjust says:

I've been there, with guys like you. As I said, you're not at all unlike some people I've known. Not if my read on your own personality is pretty much accurate and correct.



Dude the only personality you're allowed is the one Obama's overlords give you. . . otherwise, you remain a cartoon.

[Lindag20]

Ambivalent means to have mixed feelings or a sense of conflict over something. I don't think the screen name is very accurate in this person's case though.

[Ambivalent11]

Why did the Obamite cross the road?

[Ambivalent11]

The Obamites seem to be out in mass today. Is it the end of the Obama month food stamp bonus lift?

[Lindag20]

Hey Dan:

Make an eight letter word out of each set of the following words

FERN SOAK

WIDE VEER

[Ambivalent11]

Dan, a clue: Obama's medical device tax.

[Lindag20]

Amb: Can YOU make 8 letter words out of them?

Try this one if you're SO smart

IF CHIMES

[Ambivalent11]

Think4times replies:

Ya know what I do with your straw men?

I burn them :)


But they were the creators of Obama's medical device tax. Is that not anathema, apostasy, to his adherents?