« | »

WH To ‘Accommodate’ Religious Organizations

From Jake Tapper, at ABC News:

White House to Announce ‘Accommodation’ for Religious Organizations on Contraception Rule

Jake Tapper
February 10, 2012

With the White House under fire for its new rule requiring employers including religious organizations to offer health insurance that fully covers birth control coverage, ABC News has learned that later today the White House — possibly President Obama himself — will likely announce an attempt to accommodate these religious groups.

The move, based on state models, will almost certainly not satisfy bishops and other religious leaders since it will preserve the goal of women employees having their birth control fully covered by health insurance.

In point of fact, 28 states already have birth control and ‘morning after pill’ mandates on the books. Including presumably more conservative states like Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Sources say it will be respectful of religious beliefs but will not back off from that goal, which many religious leaders oppose since birth control is in violation of their religious beliefs.

Whatever happened to compromising? We thought that was the most beautiful thing you could do in politics?

One source familiar with the decision described the accommodation as “Hawaii-plus,” insisting that it’s better than the Hawaii plan — for both sides.

In Hawaii the employer is responsible for referring employees to places where they can obtain the contraception; Catholic leaders call that material cooperation with evil.

But what the White House will likely announce later today is that the relationship between the religious employer and the insurance company will not need to have any component involving contraception. The insurance company will reach out on its own to the women employees.

This is better for both sides, the source says, since the religious organizations do not have to deal with medical care to which they object, and women employees will not have to be dependent upon an organization hostile to that care in order to obtain it.

According to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, which is a division of Planned Parenthood:

The Hawaii law specifies that when an employer is exempted from the contraceptive coverage requirement on religious grounds, its employees are entitled to purchase coverage directly from the plan. The cost to the employee must be no more than the price the employee would have paid had the employer not been exempted. The law requires an exempted employer to notify its employees of this option.

All of this is very confusing. 

But it seems to mean that religious organizations that have insurance plans can object on religious grounds to providing contraceptive services. But they still have to provide the required benefit through a third party subcontractor, and at the same cost. Which, in this case, is free.

So, Catholic Services, for instance, will still be paying for free birth control and ‘morning after pills.’ But they will be doing it through third party sub-contracted insurance provides. Not their primary insurance provider.

Which seems to be a distinction with very little difference, if you ask us.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, February 10th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “WH To ‘Accommodate’ Religious Organizations”

  1. GetBackJack says:

    Boy, do I agree with this analysis – same result, but like Pontius Pilate the Church can wash their hands without actually hammering the nails themselves.

    How is it that it’s legal for a 14 year old girl to murder a child, but she cannot own a gun?

    • River0 says:

      This is so revealing of the Crypto-Marxist-‘progressive’ religion that it has to be seen as a gift for Conservatives. It’s the modus operandi of craven and amoral individuals. So like Pontius Pilate. “Don’t dirty your own hands, hire an intermediary, someone else to be scapegoat”. We’re seeing these people for exactly what they are in the full light of day. Many more Americans will abandon the plague ship of Liberalism.

      The expediency of dictatorship is also evident here. If you’re a crony of the Demonic Party, you can always get an “accommodation”, as with the 1,350 ObummerScare exemptions. Just be sure the check is made out to the right bundler in time for 2012, and that it doesn’t bounce.

  2. untrainable says:

    We’re going to force you to provide services which are agaionst your religious beliefs.
    NO! We wont!
    OK, we’ll accomodate you. We’re going to force you to provide services which are against your religion through a seperate provider.
    How exactly is that accomodating? All I see here is an underhanded tactic with the ultimate goal being to push religious organizations out of healthcare altogether. This isn’t about “reproductive health”. This is about the Marxist takeover and subsequent destruction of the healthcare and insurance industries.Once religious organizations are forced into a situation where they are unable to provide any public services because government regulations and the “descretion of the secretary” make it impossible, the State and our dear leader can finally take over completely. Once the State controls healthcare, then the eventual elimination of the church as an entity will be finally within their grasp.

    • tranquil.night says:

      I it cited that at least 25% of the nation’s health care comes from religuous institutions. You get it: this is about either assimilating all providers – religious and corporate – into the centralized command and control, or just making it impossible to continue to operate.

      Welcome to the Tea Party, people of conscience.

  3. Petronius says:

    For Nerobama “accommodation” means not using a ten-pound sledge hammer when he can get the same or better result with an eight-pound sledge hammer.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      To him, everything looks like a nail but he prefers that others do the hammering. After all, he has a tee-time to meet.

  4. proreason says:

    where’s my free beer

  5. mr_bill says:

    I’m all in favor of women receiving reproductive healthcare. I think they should all have access to the neonatal and prenatal care that our country has made the best in the world. What nerobama and his lot are discussing is not reproductive healthcare. It isn’t care at all, it’s murder and I’ll be damned if they’re going to make me pay for it.

    These statists are never satisfied. First, they invented a “right” to healthcare, now they’ve invented a “womens’ right to abortifacients.” Of course, these new rights are all free of the particular individual’s responsibility to pay for them. It’s now the duty of us productive citizens to pay for everybody else’s “rights.”

    They never stop inventing new rights for the rest of us to pay for in their ever-expanding scheme of government. Where is the right of the people to be free from unreasonable burdens of supporting those who have a responsibility to pay for their own decisions.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      As I posted on another site, Obama wouldn’t dare even consider doing the same thing to the muslims here in the US.

      People may not know it but birth control and abortion in islame is forbidden. It’s as stringent in islame as it is in Catholicism.

      I would love to see the reporter ask of Mr Ears, after he gave his b*llsh*t answer for justifying this diktat…”And, what if it wasn’t the Catholics, Mr President; What if it was the muzlimz?” Oh, the look on his face would be Kodak perfect.

      Such a question will never be axed of Massuh Pezzident though, we all know that. But it’s a nice little dream.

    • mr_bill says:

      He definitely wouldn’t do that to the muzzies. The way I understand it, his previous “exemption” was worded so strictly that it only exempted the muzzies. Not surprising at all.

      I’d pay money to see the look on his face when probed with that question. It’s a shame that there are no journalists left in the country capable of asking a pointed question.

      The Hill is running a piece today about nerobama being “burned by religion again.” It’s almost comical. The writer works through some mental contortions to arrive at the conclusion that nerobama is being entirely rational on the situation and that he’s being persecuted by the “born again” religious fanaticism that so many conservatives embrace (because all conservatives are religious fanatics who hate nerobama because he doesn’t share their zeal /sarc). The writer posits that nerobama has taken the balanced middle ground and that he’s been placed in a no-win situation by people who are bent on destroying him with trumped up scandals like Rev. Wright, the “bitter clinger” comment, and his reluctance to actually attend a church. We’re not supposed to be offended by Rev. G** D*** America and wonder why nerobama sat in the pews there for 20 years.

      The way I see it, nerobama has only been a regular attendee of the madrassa where he was schooled as a child and Rev. Wright’s “church.” He claims to believe in his “muslim faith…er…Christian faith” (we’ve all seen the video) and yet he claims that he only joined Rev. Wright’s congregation for political reasons. Aside from that, his interactions with religion are either his transparent attempts to sound religious in an attempt to gain votes or an assault on the rights and sensibilities of Christians.

      He uses religion like he uses everything else: it’s a means to an end. His real religion is progressivism and ever-expanding control. If he needs to assault religion to do it, fine. If he needs to pretend to embrace religion, fine. At the end of the day, he’s not losing any sleep either way. The only thing that’s causing him grief on his latest anti-religion edict is that the backlash was stronger than his focus group predicted. That means he’s losing votes. Nothing hurts nerobama like voters walking away from him, nothing.

    • Petronius says:

      Churches have in the past served as a shield against oppressive governments. So for him it becomes a matter of undercutting and breaking the autonomy of the Christian churches and subjecting them to secular control or manipulation by the state.

      And by the way, everybody talks about the Constitution, but the legal protection against infringement of religious liberty runs deeper than the US Constitution. It’s at least as old as the Magna Carta (1215), when King John agreed that “the English church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished and its liberties unimpaired.”

      Some special moments from Nerobama’s religious legacy :

      • “a nation of nonbelievers” speech (28 June 2006)
      • bitter-clingers speech (21 May 2008)
      • “punished with a baby” speech (30 Mar 2008)
      • Federal government files appeal against Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church (30 Jan 2009)
      • speech at Ankara, Turkey “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation [blah, blah]….” (6 Apr 2009)
      • Georgetown University speech (16 Apr 2009)
      • Vatican quietly vetoes Nerobama’s picks of Caroline Kennedy and one other pro-abortionist to become US ambassador (Apr-May 2009)
      • Nerobama appoints pro-abortionist Miguel Diaz to be ambassador to Vatican (Aug 2009)
      • cancels ecumenical service for National Day of Prayer (7 May 2009)
      • Univ. of Notre Dame honors Nerobama with an honorary law degree (17 May 2009)
      • Muslim National Day of Prayer held all day on Capitol Hill (25 Sep 2009)
      • cancels ecumenical service for National Day of Prayer (6 May 2010)
      • endorses Ground Zero Mosque at White House Ramadan observance (13 Aug 2010)
      • ant-covered Jesus at Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery (Christmas season exhibit, 2010)
      • cancels ecumenical service for National Day of Prayer (5 May 2011)
      • Evangelical clergy excluded from National Cathedral 9/11 program (Sep 2011)
      • Christian clergy excluded from New York 9/11 program (Sep 2011)
      • Supreme Ct unanimously rejects government’s position in Hosanna-Tabor Lutheran Church case (11 Jan 2012)
      • orders church organizations/their insurance carriers to provide free contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacients to employees (20 Jan-10 Feb 2012)
      • censorship of Archbishop Timothy Broglio’s letter to Army chaplains (Feb 2012)

  6. mr_bill says:

    He can’t allow such bastions of defiance to exist without an attempt to force them under submission to the progressives. The bad news for nerobama is that organized religion has a long history of standing up to tyrants, as you pointed out.

    nerobama is under the impression that his brand of tyranny is somehow new. History begs to differ with this moron.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »