As contraception mandate goes into effect, opponents continue to fight

Birth Control Pills

/ iStockphoto

(CBS News) A controversial contraception coverage mandate goes into effect today, requiring health insurance companies to provide free contraception services for women. Although the fight over the provision reached its height when President Obama announced the rule in February, opponents are still working to unravel it.

"The implementation of this policy marks the beginning of the end of religious freedom in our nation," Christen Varley, executive director of Conscience Cause, said in a statement.

Pointing to the rule as a significant advancement for women's health, President Obama announced in February that employers must provide free contraception coverage, including access to the morning after pill, as part of its insurance coverage. Religious organizations were some of the most vocal organizations to protest the rule, saying that it violated their religious beliefs. The Obama administration softened the ruling offering an exemption for religious-affiliated organizations, but the exemption did not go far enough for the rule's critics.

"We have tried negotiation with the administration and legislation with the Congress, and we'll keep at it, but there's still no fix," New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said at the time. "Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now." 

And that's where a large part of the battle is raging. Although a federal court recently rejected seven states' efforts to challenge the rule, saying the states were unable to show undue budgetary strain, other lawsuits are still in motion. Catholic organizations across the country have filed 12 lawsuits in 43 different courts. 

"What the bishops have said or done still stands," spokesperson for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Don Clemmer, told CBSNews.com about the Catholic bishop's position on the rule.

Clemmer pointed to a recent court injunction as a "positive sign" for religious institutions. A Colorado court ruled last week to offer a three month reprieve to a small business owner, not affiliated with a religious entity, from providing contraception coverage because of religious beliefs. 

But proponents of the law say the court injunction does not reveal signs of trouble for the mandate. "We have carved out a viable exception for religious organizations," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said Tuesday, disagreeing with a private business exception.

In addition to the contraception coverage rule, starting today, health insurers must provide half a dozen additional services geared toward women, including breastfeeding support, wellness preventative care, domestic violence screenings and HIV screenings. An estimated 47 million women are expected to have increased access to these services. 

Republicans in Congress, however, have vowed to undo the rule. The Republican-led House has voted numerous times to overturn it, and Senate Republicans, as recently as Tuesday, attempted to hold a vote to repeal the entire health care law, but Democrats objected.

"No woman should have to chose between seeing her doctor and putting food on the table fore her family. Now many women won't have to make that difficult choice any longer," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said.

Additional reporting by CBSNews.com's Stephanie Condon

[Jamos1977]

Will someone answer my questions about why this law left men out? Why is your menstral pain more important than my enlarged prostate??

[TimeToEvolve]

I start to get really tired of these big government conservatives who want government to control people's lives. I thought they liked freedom and democracy.

[BigChip618]

Firstly you are still allowed to practice your religion, if you think birth control is a sin then you are more than welcome not to use it. secondly for the people that say women should just keep their legs closed, how are women getting free mammograms affected by them having sex or not, how about cervical screenings or domestic violence screenings could they be avoided if women just wouldn't have sex anymore, I doubt it. Let's face what this really is it isn't government encroaching on freedom of religion this is government protecting our freedom from religion.

[Mike_in_USA]

That is a good link. I think where you are wrong is that if a person does not agree, or cannot live within the rules of their religion they are free to leave. The government should not require that religion to abandon it's tenets because of a government regulation.

[credibility2]

...here's the irony...free birth control for women, as a health issues and right to choose how to use their bodies...except a woman's right to choose is invalid when it comes to wanting to use baby formula...

[636anton33]

The church wants everyone to have more children and raise them in the religion. They are trying to keep their numbers from going down as they are now.

[taxed01]

If people cannot afford kids they shouldn't have them. If some guy can't afford hard-on pills he can't afford to raise kids and I don't want to pay to raise them. Bottom line - I don't want to pay for anybody's sex. Pills, condoms, contraception, abortions - nothing. If they do have a kid they can't afford, I don't want to pay for their housing, food, medical expenses - nothing.
This isn't about greed, religion, sexism, race or any of that crap. It's about what is fair. I expend my life earning money to provide for my family. I do not expend my life so breeding couples can have recreational sex or have kids they cannot afford. My having to expend a part of my life to pay for their decisions and their actions is not fair, no matter what the bleeding heart liberal progressives say about it. Period!

[smagboy1]

So, you want to pay MORE for your insurance to cover people having babies? Think about it, the people on your insurance plan can afford the insurance. That's how they got on the plan, right? They're already paying their premiums. So, do you want your insurance company to pay more (a LOT more) for birthing babies, and thus increase your premiums, or less (far less, and even they agree on this point) for them to provide birth control?

Your argument has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with some sort of crazy idea that your insurance company providing birth control means that you're paying for other people to be able to have sex. And while other people's sex may be something you don't want to deal with, as a member of an insurance plan or even as a customer of a medical system, it's something you HAVE to deal with. Otherwise, you'll have to fund an entire healthcare team and facilty for your family only. At least that way you won't be paying for anyone else's sex.

[FormerUSMCSergeant]

"The implementation of this policy marks the beginning of the end of religious freedom in our nation," Christen Varley, executive director of Conscience Cause, said in a statement.
---
Anyone who sees a cause and effect relationship between providing contraception and ending religious freedom is about as intelligent as a bukcet of crap.

[Mike_in_USA]

No, it is not about providing contraception only. It is about REQUIRING a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION to provide it. And, last time I looked, joining a religious organization was still voluntary, not required. By making the insurance company provide coverage, then making coverage mandatory is the same thing as requiring the religious organization to provide it, regardless of their beliefs.

[smagboy1]

How in the world, and in what possible world view, is requiring insurance companies to provide free BC to women an infringement on religious freedom?! What?! "The beginning of the end of religious freedom in our country"?! Seriously?! Man, religion is awfully fragile when this is the beginning of the end for it. That's like saying that allowing PBS to broadcast is an infringement on religous freedom. Never mind that you don't have to watch that channel. Oh well., I guess it's just as well that conservatives preach fiscal responsibility, yet, when it comes to other women's reproductive rights, they're all about getting all up in there, regardless the cost. That's nothing new. Even insurance companies see the cost benefit in offering BC over paying for child birth, but, clearly this isn't about fiscal responsiblity. It's about forcing one's religion on others. It's not enough to practice it for themselves. They have to force it on ALL of us.

[Rafterman11]

When are 'cons going to join the 21st century?