This is sure taking a long time
(NY Times) Federal officials, following through on a pledge by President Trump, have drafted a rule to roll back a federal requirement that many religious employers provide birth control coverage in health insurance plans.
The mandate for free contraceptive coverage was one of the most hotly contested Obama administration policies adopted under the Affordable Care Act, and it generated scores of lawsuits by employers that had religious objections to it.
The rule itself had virtually no statutory authorization via the ACA, ie, Obamacare. Contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients do not appear within the law at all. The rule was pretty much made up out of thin air, based on the ACA being so loose that Health and Human Services could make up anything they want.
On its website, the White House Office of Management and Budget said it is reviewing an “interim final rule†to relax the requirement, a step that would all but ensure a court challenge by women’s rights groups.
Mr. Trump signaled a change in direction on May 4, when he issued an executive order instructing three cabinet departments to consider amended regulations to “address conscience-based objections to the preventive-care mandate.†The order cites a section of the Affordable Care Act that refers specifically to preventive services for women.
What, exactly, is the draft final rule, though? That link provides zero details. The article itself can’t provide actual details. But, that’s not the point. The point is to highlight Democrat opposition and tell us how UTTERLY HORRIBLE AND WE’RE DOOMED because women would have to pay for condoms and birth control pills.
The original mandate is discriminatory, because is statutorily states that men cannot get birth control or sterilization free.
Democrats in Congress have vowed to fight just as hard to preserve the mandate, saying it has benefited over 50 million women.
Last week, Senator Patty Murray of Washington and 13 other Democratic senators warned Mick Mulvaney, the White House budget director, to cease efforts that could “undermine access to affordable preventive services, including contraception, for women.â€
In Democratic World, women are too frail and do not have the earnings skills to be able to afford $10-20 a month for birth control.
Gretchen Borchelt, a vice president of the National Women’s Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, said she did not know the details of the rule. But she said: “We think whatever the rule is, it will allow an employer’s religious beliefs to keep birth control away from women. We are sure that some women will lose birth control coverage.â€
This is the worst type of fear mongering, claiming that companies will deny their female employees birth control, when, in fact, all it means is that women would have to pay for it themselves. Nor does this mean that health insurance companies can’t offer it in their plans.
If the Trump administration does not adequately explain and justify the rule, she said, it could be challenged as “arbitrary and capricious,†in violation of federal law. In addition, she said, women could challenge it as violating a section of the Affordable Care Act that broadly prohibits discrimination in health programs that receive federal funds.
It’s discriminatory that women would have to pony up a few dollars for birth control? Did I mention that men are excluded from the original rule?
Ms. Borchelt also pointed to a little-known provision of the Affordable Care Act that says the health secretary shall not issue any rule that “impedes timely access to health care services†or “creates any unreasonable barriers to the ability of individuals to obtain appropriate medical care.â€
Seriously, this highlights how little Democrats think of women. Even Democrat voting women think women are hot house flowers which need gentle care. How is the notion of women paying a few bucks for condoms and other contraception impeding timely access? If people can’t afford a condom, perhaps they shouldn’t be having hookup sex with people they don’t want to have children with. Perhaps they could budget the money from their paychecks instead of spending money on hateful anti-Trump signs.
Of course, we don’t know what the final rule will say. We can speculate, but, no one really seems to know. So, we will wait.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
For all your arguments regarding ideology, religious “freedom” and government funding, you ignore a simple fact: Impediments to accessing contraception result in more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
IF you actually cared about reducing the number of aborted fetuses you would support greater access to contraception, not less.
It’s not clear to us why conservatives oppose contraception, although the likely explanation is that it furthers their objective of controlling the behavior of women.
We DO understand that some religious groups oppose contraception (as well as holding other beliefs in conflict with society). This is why we, as a nation, need a single payer healthcare system.
How would anyone have standing to sue? After all, it does not prevent any employer from continuing to provide a contraception benefit as part of his negotiated plan; it simply means that no employer is required to provide such coverage.