Back when I was on Twitter there was a lot of commentary in regards to the birth control mandate in the ACA. I argued there that the problem with the mandate was that it ran afoul of the constitutional protections against the state interfering with the free exercise of religion as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act which expressly exempted all religious organizations (and private clubs) from much of the federal Civil Rights laws.
I argued then as I still do, that one cannot on the one hand uphold the constitution when you are for "equal protection" (for homosexual marriage) but then act like the constitution does not exist when religious organizations do (or say) stuff you don't like. With that the linked report came as no surprise to me.
The new rules announced on Friday eliminate some confusion over which organizations qualify for the exemption by requiring employers with religious objections to self-certify that they are non-profits with religion as a core part of their mission. Religiously affiliated organizations that choose to insure themselves would instruct their "third-party administrator" to provide coverage through separate individual health insurance policies so that they do not have to pay for services to which they morally object.
The Department of Health and Human Services:
Today’s NPRM would simplify the existing definition of a “religious employer” as it relates to contraceptive coverage.
The NPRM would eliminate criteria that a religious employer:
have the inculcation of religious values as its purpose;
primarily employ persons who share its religious tenets; and
primarily serve persons who share its religious tenets.
The simple definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the exemption would follow a section of the Internal Revenue Code, and would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations, as defined by Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii)
This proposed change is intended to clarify that 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 Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules.
What I am curious about is how or why there is no co-pay. I'm having a problem understanding how women are entitled to free contraception. Not a single piece of legislation that I know of will pay for a man to purchase condoms. Is it too much to expect women to chip in for their contraception?
This seems to be a blatant fail of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. from the Healthcare.gov site:
9) Contraception: Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs*
10) Domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women*
To make this law 14th Amendment compliant item 9 should be for men and women and item 10 should be for both men and women since men and women equally initiate interpersonal domestic violence (
1)(
2).
