Dueling contraception coverage plans advance

(CBS News) - The war over contraception coverage continues as proposals on opposite sides of the birth control debate move forward.

A bill that would exempt employers from providing health care coverage for employees' contraception is making its way through the Arizona legislature, while President Obama's rule mandating that employees of religious-affiliated institutions receive free contraception coverage moved forward Friday.

The Arizona bill enables any employer - not just religious-affiliated ones - to site religious beliefs for excluding all FDA-approved forms of contraception coverage for its employees.

To receive insurance coverage for contraception, a women would have to show proof to her employer that the contraception is for a medical reason other than preventing pregnancy.

An employee can then ask her boss for reimbursement for the cost of contraception, though the Arizona bill states the employee could pay an additional "administrative fee" for processing the reimbursement claim.

Glendale Republican Rep. Debbie Lesko, co-sponsor of the bill, told the Arizona Star, "I believe that we live in America. We don't live in the Soviet Union. And so government shouldn't be telling employers, Catholic organizations or mom-and-pop employers to do something that's against their moral beliefs,"

A similar measure by Senators Roy Blunt of Missouri and Marco Rubio of Florida died in the Senate earlier this month, but the measure is seeing greater success in Arizona, passing the state's House of Representatives and a key Senate committee and is awaiting a vote in the full Senate.

The American Civil Liberties Union said the Arizona bill goes further than providing a religious exception for birth control. In a petition to Senate President Steve Pierce, the liberal-leaning legal organization said this bill opens the door to discrimination and says an employee could be fired for using contraception.

"It is an abomination to put a woman in a position where she is forced to choose between her job and birth control," the petition reads.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said Friday she is unsure if she would sign the bill into law should it pass. According to the Associated Press, Brewer said it could make women "a little bit uncomfortable" to discuss their health care with their employers.

The battle over contraception erupted last month after President Obama announced that religious-affiliated institutions, including universities and hospitals, would have to provide free contraception coverage. He since modified the plan to say the insurance provider must include free contraception in health plans, shifting the cost from the employer to the insurance company.

On Friday, President Obama moved forward and took a concrete step to implement the new proposal. The administration offered ways to implement the rule and opened a 90-day public comment period to help formulate the proposal.

An administration official at the Department of Health and Human Services told CBS News' Political Hotsheet Friday that the milestone proves that "we are going to work over the next year to develop a policy to ensure those employees will receive coverage from insurance companies."

[reality_sanity]

What if your current employer sells the company to someone that wants to end coverages you consider important. (Selling companies between shell corporations is an easy to create an opportunity to change insurance coverages without actually changing the companies management.) Whose opinion is the basis of the belief of a corporation; could naming a new President or Chairman of the Board be an opportunity to alter employee medical coverage because of the "change of belief" of the tyrant authorized by the new Republican proposal to make these "belief" decisions for entire corporations and all their employees?

[Zann-Zel]

Nowdays we all have to sign countless papers for anyone in the medical profession, stating we understand their "Privacy Policy".

But NOW they want us to take a step backwards and open up our medical files to our bosses!

[reality_sanity]

They probably haven't figured out this is a violation of the HIPPA laws yet. Just as the invasive reporting proposed in Tennessee for those seeking abortions in the state.

[Zann-Zel]

If we had to ask our bosses what they do and do not cover before we are employed, some of us would be discriminated against! I never tell a boss I have epilepsy, no one wants to hire you once you utter that word! Its under control so its none of their business!

[Slenderella]

Religious Freedom Exceptions: Scientology believes all psychiatry is inherently evil. Therefore, no antidepressants, anti-anxiety, sleeping medications, etc. will be covered if you are employed by a believer. Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses believe that the Bible prohibits blood products and transfusions. Therefore, no blood products (packed red cells, whole blood, plasma, etc.) would be covered. Therefore almost every surgical procedure would NOT be covered (most surgeries require at least some form of blood product on standby for unexpected bleeding). The State/Law cannot distinguish between the various denominations, i.e. pick and choose which religions get to claim exception and which don't. Not forcing a religious institution to cover what is fundamentally against its doctrines is one thing, allowing individuals of the faith to force their doctrines onto lives (and deaths) of our families is another. While contraception may seem to be the issue, it's not.

[reality_sanity]

Don -- Even Republicans like Senator McCain from Arizona are standing up and railing against this overreach into medical decisions of individuals in this country.

[Zann-Zel]

by Don_IL March 19, 2012 1:38 PM EDT
I never said I agreed with it now didi I
----------------
Well don't vote FOR what you don't agree with Don!
Vote out all Republicans! : )

[Zann-Zel]

To receive insurance coverage for contraception, a women would have to show proof to her employer that the contraception is for a medical reason other than preventing pregnancy.
--------------------------------------
This is ********! No woman or man should have to discuss their private medical decisions with their employer!

WOMEN - VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS!!!

They obviously need a very strong message! : /

[reality_sanity]

The laws proposed in Washington by the Republicans are being sold as targeting women today but they are being written in a manner that they could apply to anyone. Everyone should be voting the Republicans that support these laws out. Unless of course you believe your employer should be empowered to practice medicine without a license.

[Zann-Zel]

Unless men want to be asking their boss for permission to take Viagra - they also need to VOTE OUT ALL REPUBLICANS!!!

[nut-meg]

Whatever happened to doctor patient confidentiality? An employer should never know if they are paying for contraception because if they choose to provide health care, absolutely none of what comes after is any of their business. If employers moral beliefs can't be crossed, and are more important than the rights of the employees, then I suppose I should be able to fire an employee that has to be deployed to Afghanistan simply because I believe war to be immoral. If we can't legally force someone to pay for something they feel is immoral, I look forward to a very large tax refund for all the wars I've been paying for for over 10 years.

[reality_sanity]

Actually the law proposed by Republicans in Washington would permit an employer to make medical decisions for their employees. From what I have seen without restriction an employer could deny any medical coverage he chooses from his employees based solely on the employers BELIEF that the treatment is inappropriate or ineffective. Should we permit employers to PRACTICE MEDICINE without a license in this country

[AttyFAM]

by nonpolitico

If an Amercam own a gun...HIS RIGHT!!
If an American Smokes....HIS RIGHT!!
If an American Drinks....HIS RIGHT!!
If an American loves to EAT. HIS RIGHT!!

Also, and this is why I love America, it is also HIS RESPONSIBILITY!
So, if you are liberal and left wing, and have strong opinions on Womens contraception or ANY of the above, just mind your own business and BUTT OUT!!
Or join the growing Independents!!
-------------------------------------------------------------

And that is the way you see the world: HIS. Not HERS, not remotely.

But none of those rights are unqualified. And if HE is going to have rights, so should SHE. SHE should have the right to not have HIM make her pregnant. SHE should have the right to adequate medical care of female medical problems. SHE should have the right not to have HIS superstitious beliefs trump her health care rights. If HE wants to believe in some religious fantasy, fine - as long as it does not interfere with HER rights and HE has no right to poke around in HER medical care.

[Lindag10]

There is the religious component in this issue due to the fact the Catholics are basing their refusal to obey the law of the land on the argument that providing contraceptives "violates" their exercise of their religious beliefs. I'm with in the hope that this argument isn't allowed to trump the rights of women.

[Lindag10]

oops..meant with you

[Lionhart40]

Well boys, after following your posts I was about to get myself popcorn and settle in for what was an interesting parry and thrust on the subject. That is until it became childlike in trying to get each other to answer the others questions!
While I don't care what the church wants since I'm not part of their flock, I understand their premise though it irks me since it's a bit of an ironic yet convenient slight of hand to me. The church worries about your "soul" according to "doctrine" or faith. All of which leads to real world/faith world dilemmas that are trying to be regulated by government in some way. Is the irony lost on all of you that 95% of the faithful use birth control in their life or that the church has no problem with Viagra? Is it lost to you folks that we fund trillions yearly to kill people we don't know for reasons we're given? Not to get too far off point I do have to say that I would rather pay for contraception than wars. While Obama may have stepped on the churches toes on this issue of contraception I can't fault him for wanting to make sure it's available. <I have to state a disclaimer here in the interest of honesty that I don't know what the exact deal is with either free or $9 a month cost that's been posted here since I haven't researched it myself.> I AM however shocked and dismayed at the amount of stupid bills that have been proposed. My "favorite" is "personhood" for sperm and eggs. Which to me means that everyone would have to be charged with attempted murder or premeditated murder. (Gentlemen! We have to protect our bodily fluids!<Dr. Strangelove) LOL There certainly seems to be something in the water lately that makes people think they suddenly have the right to push their views past our bedroom door and straight into the womb. (If you'll pardon the visual.) I detest the idea that in a country that fights for personal freedoms, it now finds it perfectly fine to attack or try to regulate women, men, human nature or sex in general through some religious concept made into law at any time. But especially now when the number of issues for our country is overwhelmingly burdensome to us. Santorum would like us to follow what his very right wing religious views and undue many other freedoms as he tries to get a job. I think that sex and religion never should have been on the menu for the job the way it has lately. While I go from amused to very mad over the ideas and laws being bantered about over sex, women's rights, religion and money I know two things. One, I don't want or need my government or any religion to tell me what I can and can't do. And two, that I don't have the answers for any of it for you. Now isn't that ironic? :-)

[Lindag10]

Interesting and thoughtful comment. The reality is that insurance companies are MORE than happy to cover birth control pills as they are FAR cheaper than the costs of pregnancy. The REAL issue with the Catholic church is CONTROL over women. All employee health plans that I've ever had or know about require that the employee also pay into them. So by denying women coverage for something so vital to their health and well being, the religious groups are merely exercising control over the women. Also despite the argument over the cost (some claiming it's "free" or a few dollars a month), the reality is that if a women is under treatment for a medical condition that requires the use of hormone therapy (birth control pills) they can't just run to the neighborhood Planned Parenthood and request birth control pills as they're not just handed out like candy. I was under treatment for a medical condition with birth control pills, not for contraception and was fortunate enough to have at that time a very good health plan that covered my treatment. It didn't work and I ended up having a hysterectomy, but the FIRST line of treatment was hormone therapy. This is NOT a religious liberty issue no matter how loudly the opponents of coverage measure scream. Sometimes the government needs to step in and this is one of those times. Back in the "olden days" when I was young, pregnancy was not covered under health insurance plans and the government had to FORCE the insurance companies to cover it. There was a great outcry at the time, but now it's standard in health policies. I agree with your premise that this is but a wedge issue, however the trend I'm seeing in states where the religious right is in control of the government greatly troubles me. Like these "personhood" bills. When personhood occurs is a matter of belief and the attempt to legislate it is over the top. In the constitution, citizenship was granted at birth as the framers of the constitution were wise enough to leave that issue alone.

[Lionhart40]

Linda... Thank you... While somewhat tongue in cheek, I can't help but think the churches stance is control under a cloak of man made doctrine. I read somewhere that faith isn't found in buildings, but in the center of the person with faith.
While an interesting guide to life perhaps, I admit that I'm one of those "who made who" people that will never know the answer. So with that view I can appreciate the grand cathedrals for it's grandeur and beauty but would most certainly prefer millions of kids eat have clothes or go to school than have the vast wealth of the Vatican (which I call Gods jewelry box). As for the Constitution, when it was conceived <LOL> they were quite clueless in comparison to today! There will always be that question for me, Why give us a brain and tell us not to use it? Ahhh... that free will thing again! Seems there will be no end in sight to the questions, the learning, or the divergence of faith and ideas. It really does have the potential for one heck of a migraine! :-)

[samareth]

How on earth can anyone think it's pro-First Amendment to let any employer force their religious views on their employees? The Bill of Rights lists the rights of individual citizens not organizations.

[rogget]

The First Ammendment guarantees freedom of religion to practice as you believe. It says the Government cannot tell a religion what to believe.

[rogget]

Oil subsidies, bases, etc. are not matters that pertain to freedom of religion. It was nice talking to you, but time for me to go now. Stay tuned to the Supreme Court's decision. Sorry the Government is trying to put Catholic hospitals, Catholic Charities, and Universities out to dry. They have contributed a lot to this country and do not deserve to be treated so rudely.

[rogget]

Shame on Obama and his amoral gang. There is nothing to be puzzled about, Obama. You are anti-religion. You are telling me what my religion is. Sorry, mine is not yours. How is this freedom of choice? Freedom is vanishing in this country

[rogget]

Because abortion is against most religions and the Government has no right to tell a religion to subsidize abortion or contraceptive coverage if their religion does not believe they should do so. The Government has no right, via the First Ammendment, telling a religion what to believe.