Birth Control Rule Altered to Allay Religious Objections
By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Friday proposed yet another
compromise to address strenuous objections from religious organizations
about a policy requiring health insurance plans to provide free
contraceptives, but the change did not end the political furor or legal
fight over the issue.
The proposal could expand the number of groups that do not need to pay
directly for birth control coverage, encompassing not only churches and
other religious organizations, but also some religiously affiliated
hospitals, universities and social service agencies. Health insurance
companies would pay for the coverage.
The latest proposed change is the third in the last 15 months, all
announced on Fridays, as President Obama has struggled to balance
women’s rights, health care and religious liberty. Legal experts said
the fight could end up in the Supreme Court.
Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said the
proposal would guarantee free coverage of birth control “while
respecting religious concerns.”
But Kyle Duncan, the general counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious
Liberty in Washington, which is representing employers in eight
lawsuits, said the litigation would continue. “Today’s proposed rule
does nothing to protect the religious freedom of millions of Americans,”
Mr. Duncan said.
Religious groups dissatisfied with the new proposal want a broader, more
explicit exemption for religious organizations and protection for
secular businesses owned by people with religious objections to
contraceptive coverage.
The tortured history of the rule has played out in several chapters. The
Obama administration first issued standards requiring insurers to cover
contraceptives for women in August 2011, less than a month after
receiving recommendations to that effect from the National Academy of
Sciences. In January 2012, the administration rejected a broad exemption
sought by the Roman Catholic Church for insurance provided by Catholic
hospitals, colleges and charities. After a firestorm of criticism from
Catholic bishops and Republican lawmakers, the administration offered a
possible compromise that February. But it left many questions unanswered
and did not say how coverage would be provided for self-insured
religious organizations.
Under the new proposal, churches and nonprofit religious organizations
that object to providing birth control coverage on religious grounds
would not have to pay for it.
Female employees could get free contraceptive coverage through a
separate plan that would be provided by a health insurer. Institutions
objecting to the coverage would not pay for the contraceptives.
Insurance companies would bear the cost of providing the separate
coverage, with the possibility of recouping the costs through lower
health care expenses resulting in part from fewer births.
Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, who helped develop the proposal as deputy
director of the federal office that regulates health insurance, said:
“Under the proposed rule, insurance companies — not churches or other
religious organizations — will cover contraceptive services. No
nonprofit religious institution will be forced to pay for or provide
contraceptive coverage, and churches and houses of worship are
specifically exempt.”
Moreover, she said, “Nonprofit religious organizations like
universities, hospitals or charities with religious objections won’t
have to arrange, contract or pay for coverage of these services for
their employees or students.”
But some of the lawsuits objecting to the plan have been filed by
businesses owned by people who say they have religious reasons for not
wanting to provide contraceptive coverage. Under the proposed rule,
“for-profit secular employers” would have to provide birth control
coverage to employees, even if the business owners had a religious
objection to the idea.
Insurers said they were studying the proposal, but had questions about
how it would work. Many insurers asked where they would get the money to
pay for birth control pills if — as the proposed rule says — they
cannot “impose any premium, fee or other charge” for the coverage. The
2010 health care law
generally requires employers to provide women with coverage at no cost
for “preventive care and screenings,” which the administration says must
include contraceptives for women under most health plans.
The administration says employers must cover sterilization and the full
range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, including emergency contraceptive pills, like those
known as ella and Plan B One-Step. Employers that do not provide such coverage will be subject to financial penalties.
On Friday, the administration proposed a complicated arrangement to
finance contraceptive coverage for employees of religious organizations
that serve as their own insurers. The federal government would require
health insurance companies to help defray the cost. In return, the
insurers would get a credit against the fees they pay for the privilege
of selling health insurance to millions of Americans in new online
markets run by the federal government.
The government was already planning to charge user fees to the insurers
to pay for the operation of those marketplaces, known as insurance
exchanges.
Ms. Brooks-LaSure said the user fees were “not a cost to the federal
government or to taxpayers.” Rather, she said, the fees are “private
dollars paid by private insurers that choose to operate in the
exchanges.”
Insurers said, however, that the cost of user fees, like other expenses, would often be passed on to consumers.
The proposal also said insurers could not impose any annual or lifetime
limits on the dollar value of contraceptive benefits. But the
administration added that “the cost of the contraceptive coverage could
include a reasonable margin,” or profit, for insurers.
Administration officials tried to address some objections on Friday by
proposing a new definition of “religious employers” that could be
exempted from the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage.
The administration affirmed that the exemption would apply to churches
and other houses of worship and that it would also be available to
certain affiliated nonprofit groups that certify, in writing, that they
have religious objections to such coverage.
Now, under the proposal, the administration said, “a house of worship
would not be excluded from the exemption because, for example, it
provides charitable social services to persons of different religious
faiths or employs persons of different religious faiths.”
The administration had previously agreed to allow exemptions for some
religious employers. But church groups said the exemption was so narrow
that it was almost meaningless. Previously, a religious employer could
not have qualified for the exemption if it employed or served large
numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals,
universities and social service agencies do.
Stephen F. Schneck, the director of the Institute for Policy Research
and Catholic Studies at the Catholic University of America in
Washington, said, “The revised definition is an important win for
religious institutions because it clarifies conscience protections for
entities like Catholic hospitals, charities and universities.” Mr.
Schneck was a leader of Catholics for Obama last year.
The administration said that the new definition, though simpler, “would
not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the
exemption beyond that which was intended” in final rules issued last
year.
Reaction was wide ranging. Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned
Parenthood Federation of America, said the policy affirmed that “your
boss does not get to decide whether you can have birth control.”
But Representative Christopher H. Smith, Republican of New Jersey and
co-chairman of the Pro-Life Caucus in Congress, said the proposal
represented “neither an accommodation nor a compromise” and provided “no
relief for small businesses run by people of faith.”
HI-
Thanks for the help. The item’s
below. I’d be happy to mail you a copy, if you give me a mailing
address.
Claude
Solnik
(631)
913-4244
Long Island Business
News
2150
Smithtown Ave.
Ronkonkoma,
NY 11779-7348
Home >
LI Confidential
> Stop scratching on holidays
Stop scratching on holidays
Published: June 1, 2012
Off Track Betting in New York State has been racing into a crisis called shrinking revenue. Some people have spitballed a solution: Don’t close on holidays.
New York State Racing Law bars racing on Christmas, Easter and Palm Sunday, and the state has ruled OTBs can’t handle action on those days, even though they could easily broadcast races from out of state.
“You should be able to bet whenever you want,” said Jackson Leeds, a Nassau OTB employee who makes an occasional bet. He added some irrefutable logic: “How is the business going to make money if you’re not open to take people’s bets?”
Elias Tsekerides, president of the Federation of Hellenic Societies of Greater New York, said OTB is open on Greek Orthodox Easter and Palm Sunday.
“I don’t want discrimination,” Tsekerides said. “They close for the Catholics, but open for the Greek Orthodox? It’s either open for all or not open.”
OTB officials have said they lose millions by closing on Palm Sunday alone, with tracks such as Gulfstream, Santa Anita, Turf Paradise and Hawthorne running.
One option: OTBs could just stay open and face the consequences. New York City OTB did just that back in 2003. The handle was about $1.5 million – and OTB was fined $5,000.
Easy money.
Greeks shall not bet in New York . No Deal. No Andrew Cuomo . Vote no Cuomo.
No comments:
Post a Comment