Cornyn, predictably, says no. Not that he, personally, has anything against birth control. Well, he doesn’t exactly say that, but he makes a point of saying contraception isn’t the point:
“The dispute over the mandate is not a dispute over the use of contraception. It is a dispute over First Amendment rights.”
He devotes several paragraphs to this argument, using phrases like “a blow to one of our most cherished liberties” and “the bedrock principles upon which our great country was established.” His headline vows, “If President Obama doesn't end contraception rule, Congress will.”
Ah, the good ol’ First Amendment. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech. That’s why the Congressional oversight panel held a hearing about the mandate and didn’t let any women testify.
So maybe this brouhaha isn’t about contraception, or the First Amendment either. What it’s really about, I suspect, is finding one more sticking point that opponents of health care reform can use to stir up the Tea Party, make the law less effective, and maybe get the whole thing thrown out. New York Times columnist Gail Collins has expressed the same suspicion.
At this point, I’d like to step back and review what started this whole discussion. The Affordable Care Act includes a requirement that all insurance plans, as of a specified date, include coverage of certain preventive services with no deductible and no copay. That includes FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling, not including abortifacient drugs. You can see the complete list here.
Regarding those contraceptives, there’s supposed to be an exemption for churches, etc., that don’t believe in them. Earlier this year, the Obama Administration decided that church-affiliated hospitals, universities, and other organizations whose main business isn’t church, don’t qualify for the exemption and must provide the coverage.
That makes sense to me. Anyone who accepts a paying job at an actual church, diocese headquarters, or some place like that is likely to be an adherent of that faith, and should expect a certain amount of lifestyle-policing in connection with the job.
Church-affiliated universities and hospitals, on the other hand, are businesses that operate in the secular world. Non-profits, perhaps, but businesses all the same. Often run by lay people with management credentials, they serve customers and employ workers of all religious persuasions. It seems reasonable that these institutions, if they provide employee health insurance, should have to meet the minimum standards that are required for everyone else.
I got to thinking about how many Catholic-affiliated schools and hospitals there are in my state, and how many people they employ. Feeling curious, I contacted two old friends who work at Catholic universities and asked about their health benefits. Both said their policies covered birth control, no problem. One friend, it turns out, also put in a few years with one of the big hospital networks. That job provided coverage, too.
So why the sudden outrage about Obama’s rule?
- A faith-based institution may provide employee health coverage for things that are, strictly speaking, against its religion -- but it doesn’t want the government saying it has to?
- Is it the no-copay thing that’s causing the trouble? Is it somehow less immoral to provide that coverage if the employee picks up part of the cost?
Update: Here's an article about a state that already requires insurance plans to cover contraceptives, and the reaction (or lack thereof) from faith-based institutions there.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete