Catholic universities required to provide birth control? (merged)

The link I posted a few days ago here, dated august 1 of last year specifically mentioned the exemption in effect now. At the very least, this issue could have been brought up six months ago.

That was an interim ruling. Final ruling was announced Jan 20.

Apparently, objections were raised to the administration after Aug but they were rejected and hence the final ruling.

A statement by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law.
This decision was made after very careful consideration, including the important concerns some have raised about religious liberty.
 
More on why now:

Catholic News Herald - Concerns grow among local Catholics over HHS contraception mandate - HHS delays, but does not change, rule on contraceptive coverage - Local Catholic News from the Diocese of Charlotte

In December, a group of more than 60 evangelical, Baptist and Jewish leaders voiced their objection to the mandate in a letter to President Obama. They observed that "religious organizations beyond the Catholic community have deep moral objections" to the proposed mandate.

Concerns about freedom of conscience were raised in August 2011, when Sebelius issued an interim final rule outlining the initial "preventive health services" requirement.

Although the interim rule included an exemption for religious employers, many religious organizations said it was too narrow and would not include many church ministries.
 

:hi:

Good that theyre seemingly being consistent. I still dont buy the outrage from dc republicans or the candidates as genuine, otherwise it would have come up earlier.

I think the exemptions started in a good place--based on common existing law with room for expansion (which they did from the beginning), but I also think there is substantial tangible benefit from required provision of birth control. Ultimately freedom of access to contraceptives needs to be considered, and there is a trade off between exceptions and access.
 
:hi:

Good that theyre seemingly being consistent. I still dont buy the outrage from dc republicans or the candidates as genuine, otherwise it would have come up earlier.

I think the exemptions started in a good place--based on common existing law with room for expansion (which they did from the beginning), but I also think there is substantial tangible benefit from required provision of birth control. Ultimately freedom of access to contraceptives needs to be considered, and there is a trade off between exceptions and access.

you keep saying that the GOP is just crowing now to make this a campaign issue

have you heard what Bart Stupak has been saying about this?
 
you keep saying that the GOP is just crowing now to make this a campaign issue

have you heard what Bart Stupak has been saying about this?

I remember seeing something the other night about a handful of Democrats speaking up on the issue but didn't remember who by name. It's every bit as disingenuous.
 
105802_600.jpg
 
Then again, the fact that they are covered doesn't require anyone to use it. Kind of like what Ron Paul says about legalization of drugs. Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone should and will go out and do it.
Still, I'm on board that the government should back off and not mandate their agenda.

Unfortunately, when you accept Federal funds or students receive Fed assistance to attend your university, this is what happens. In order to get the money, you have to play ball with the gov't.
 

VN Store



Back
Top