Legal misconception?

OK, i'm not catholic so i think the anti-birth control stance is pretty goofy, but why should the state have the right to tell an organization that it must provide insurance coverage for birth control? the state doesn't tell companies, if they have to have insurance or what kind , or at what cost to the employees. why is availability of insurance coverage for birth control a legal matter?

Catholic charities article

I don't see the problem. If you are going to do business, you do it the same as everyone else. They don't pay taxes as it is, why are they bitching?

the way i understand it, they an offshoot of the catholic church, but not closely related enough for the state. being a catholic organization they are morally opposed to the use of birth control and a requirement to provide B.C. coverage would be appalling to them.

my question isn't about the idea of BC vs anti-BC, but about the legality of telling a company that they must provide coverage for it. there are many things my insurance plan doesn't cover, and don't quote me on this, but i don't think BC is covered under my plan. insurance coverage isn't standardized so i wonder how this can be a requirement.

The article says it's a state law that applies to everyone. States can pass laws. They have that right. For example, there is a federal minimum wage. Some states have passed laws to raise their own minimum wage above the federal level. This is similar. I don't see any problem, in theory, in passing a law requiring certain benefits be provided to employees in a particular state. In practice, there may be a problem when all the businesses leave your state.

lookout123 wrote:

insurance coverage isn't standardized so i wonder how this can be a requirement.

Apparently it's more standardized in California, and the Supreme Court left it in the states' hands to standardize insurance coverage to whatever extent they wished.

The Church may be able to get around it by firing everyone and re-hiring them as consultants or contract workers.

So they're a company that just happens to be catholic instead of the other way around?

If that is the case then they should be free to do as they please as long as it's not against legitimate health regulations and it is stated clearly in the hiring practices.

Happy Monkey wrote:

Apparently it's more standardized in California, and the Supreme Court left it in the states' hands to standardize insurance coverage to whatever extent they wished.

i think you're right HM. i'm not catholic and don't care at all about BC, but this particular issue just doesn't seem right to me, even if it is legal.

oh well, what are you going to do?

You're going to play the Vatican Roulett! YIPEE!

Though, actually, tequila is more to blame than Rome for the last kid...

I think the problem is that you get into some outside entity controlling your personal life either way (BTW, Lookout, you mean your health insurance plan doesn't cover your wife's visits to the gynecologist? So she can only be covered if she goes to an ob/gyn when pregnant? That doesn't make any sense. Its cheaper to cover a year's supply of birth control pills and a pelvic exam then it is to cover 9 months' worth of visits to an ob/gyn and birthing costs, or isn't pregnancy covered either under your plan? If not, I'd switch to a job that gives better health benefits).

On the one hand I can see the government's point: The Catholic Church is forcing its religous stance about BC on its employees. In theory if I am a Jew working for the Catholics, they are taking away my freedom of religous choice by specifically banning birth control from my health care plan because of THEIR religous agenda.

On the other hand, if I am a member of a different faith, and I feel that strongly about it, why on earth would I go to work for a Catholic charity anyhow?

This one is a puzzler to me. :confused:

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

I believe this was pushed by womens rights groups. If you provide any medical coverage, you have to provide the females with BC drugs and the choice of an ob/gyn as primary care Doc, if desired. :confused:

wolf wrote:

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

Yes, but I'm surprised the insurance companies don't do it anyway. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than for a typical pregnancy and delivery. Insurance companies are all about the bottom line.

Of course, using your logic, insurance shouldn't cover pre-natal visits or childbirth, since they are elective too.

(BTW, Lookout, you mean your health insurance plan doesn't cover your wife's visits to the gynecologist? So she can only be covered if she goes to an ob/gyn when pregnant? That doesn't make any sense.

her doctor visits are covered. just not a prescription for BC pills or the shot or anything like that.

and i wouldn't change my job for insurance issues

wolf wrote:

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

What!? Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh Wolf? So everybody should just either be celibate or have 14 kids. And by that reasoning health insurance companies shouldn't cover pregnancy and birth, either. Right? Having a baby is an elective, too. Lets have health insurance companies that put disclaimers in on covering any part of a woman's reproductive system. If she plays, she pays. You've come a long way, baby. :eyebrow:

Plastic surgery is elective.

Birth control is elective.

Lasix is elective.

Sterilization procedures, male or female are elective.

Pills and devices to prevent pregnancy are elective.

Prenatal and birthing care, while the result of an elective choice on the part of the consumer do fall under the umbrella of necessary health care.

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.

wolf wrote:

Plastic surgery is elective.

Birth control is elective.

Lasix is elective.

Sterilization procedures, male or female are elective.

Pills and devices to prevent pregnancy are elective.

Prenatal and birthing care, while the result of an elective choice on the part of the consumer do fall under the umbrella of necessary health care.

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.

I would hardly put birth control in the same catagory as plastic surgery, and if I were a member of an HMO, I'd rather chip in for birth control pills, rather than labor room costs. I agree that HMO members should pay for the cost of insuring their own offspring.

wolf wrote:

I, however, shouldn't have to pay extra on MY premiums because YOU got knocked up, and now have to also insure your offspring. Extra people on your policy should be paid by YOU, not by my employer.

I understand what you are saying here, but isn't the whole point of insurance to have everyone pay into the system to cover the costs of those who need it? If you really wanted to be responsible for just your own hide, you wouldn't have insurance at all. You would pay out of pocket for the procedures you get yourself, and you would hope you never get cancer, heart disease, etc.

I'm a thin, healthy-food eating, active, non-smoking adult. I don't like my money going to cover the obese, sedentary, McDonald's-eating smokers, but we are all in this boat together. That's the whole point of insurance.

I'm a thin, healthy-food eating, active, non-smoking adult.

Damn, don't you have any fun? :eyebrow:

Insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc. So why not birth control?

Elspode wrote:

Insurance companies cover Viagra, Cialis, etc. So why not birth control?

Only if the need is explained and justified, by a Doctor for a medical condition. :dead:

In an earlier thread a lot of people were posting in defense of an employee who had been fired for persistently breaking company rules and eating pork on the premises. In that instance Lookout if i am not much mistaken you felt that the employers were being unreasonable.

Perhaps the fact that these are Catholics and therefore a part of the Christian spectrum (and as such less alien and more understandable to us than the moslem employers who did not wish their employees to bring forbidden substances into their offices) means we are more forgiving of their ideosyncracies

But the Muslim employers weren't being forced to BUY the woman her pig sandwich. The Catholic employer's not saying their employees can't use birth control on the premises or off, only that they're not going to pay for it.

it may seem a fine line Dana, but i think that is the essence of what bothers me about this.

IIRC the muslim company had no written policies regarding pork consumption, just a word of mouth warning. the employee was fired for eating it during her unpaid lunch break.

the catholic company's insurance rider would spell out in detail what is covered and what isn't. it is the individual's responsibility to decide to work there or not. they can do whatever they choose to do with their body as there is no requirement to be catholic in order work there. but to turn around and sue a company that is tied (but not closely enough) to the catholic church for not including BC in insurance coverage, knowing full well that BC isn't compatible with church doctrine?

Ok, that makes sense.

Why the hell can't Catholics use birth control anyway?

depmats wrote:

Why the hell can't Catholics use birth control anyway?

The Pope says only god can determine when a child is conceived. Humans have no right to think for themselves nor control their own body. That is god's domain. All contraception - except the rythm method - is out. Sex is for making kids. This from a man who 'theoretically' does not come from where the work gets done.