Legal misconception?

lookout123 · 10-07-2004, 01:15 PM

OK, i'm not catholic so i think the anti-birth control stance is pretty goofy, but why should the state have the right to tell an organization that it must provide insurance coverage for birth control? the state doesn't tell companies, if they have to have insurance or what kind , or at what cost to the employees. why is availability of insurance coverage for birth control a legal matter?

Catholic charities article

Troubleshooter · 10-07-2004, 01:25 PM

I don't see the problem. If you are going to do business, you do it the same as everyone else. They don't pay taxes as it is, why are they bitching?

lookout123 · 10-07-2004, 01:31 PM

the way i understand it, they an offshoot of the catholic church, but not closely related enough for the state. being a catholic organization they are morally opposed to the use of birth control and a requirement to provide B.C. coverage would be appalling to them.

my question isn't about the idea of BC vs anti-BC, but about the legality of telling a company that they must provide coverage for it. there are many things my insurance plan doesn't cover, and don't quote me on this, but i don't think BC is covered under my plan. insurance coverage isn't standardized so i wonder how this can be a requirement.

glatt · 10-07-2004, 01:43 PM

The article says it's a state law that applies to everyone. States can pass laws. They have that right. For example, there is a federal minimum wage. Some states have passed laws to raise their own minimum wage above the federal level. This is similar. I don't see any problem, in theory, in passing a law requiring certain benefits be provided to employees in a particular state. In practice, there may be a problem when all the businesses leave your state.

Happy Monkey · 10-07-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lookout123

insurance coverage isn't standardized so i wonder how this can be a requirement.

Apparently it's more standardized in California, and the Supreme Court left it in the states' hands to standardize insurance coverage to whatever extent they wished.

glatt · 10-07-2004, 01:47 PM

The Church may be able to get around it by firing everyone and re-hiring them as consultants or contract workers.

Troubleshooter · 10-07-2004, 01:48 PM

So they're a company that just happens to be catholic instead of the other way around?

If that is the case then they should be free to do as they please as long as it's not against legitimate health regulations and it is stated clearly in the hiring practices.

lookout123 · 10-07-2004, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Apparently it's more standardized in California, and the Supreme Court left it in the states' hands to standardize insurance coverage to whatever extent they wished.

i think you're right HM. i'm not catholic and don't care at all about BC, but this particular issue just doesn't seem right to me, even if it is legal.

oh well, what are you going to do?

Trilby · 10-07-2004, 01:56 PM

You're going to play the Vatican Roulett! YIPEE!

Though, actually, tequila is more to blame than Rome for the last kid...

10-07-2004, 03:45 PM

I think the problem is that you get into some outside entity controlling your personal life either way (BTW, Lookout, you mean your health insurance plan doesn't cover your wife's visits to the gynecologist? So she can only be covered if she goes to an ob/gyn when pregnant? That doesn't make any sense. Its cheaper to cover a year's supply of birth control pills and a pelvic exam then it is to cover 9 months' worth of visits to an ob/gyn and birthing costs, or isn't pregnancy covered either under your plan? If not, I'd switch to a job that gives better health benefits).

On the one hand I can see the government's point: The Catholic Church is forcing its religous stance about BC on its employees. In theory if I am a Jew working for the Catholics, they are taking away my freedom of religous choice by specifically banning birth control from my health care plan because of THEIR religous agenda.

On the other hand, if I am a member of a different faith, and I feel that strongly about it, why on earth would I go to work for a Catholic charity anyhow?

This one is a puzzler to me.

wolf · 10-08-2004, 12:45 AM

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

xoxoxoBruce · 10-08-2004, 04:09 AM

I believe this was pushed by womens rights groups. If you provide any medical coverage, you have to provide the females with BC drugs and the choice of an ob/gyn as primary care Doc, if desired.

glatt · 10-08-2004, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

Yes, but I'm surprised the insurance companies don't do it anyway. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to pay for birth control than for a typical pregnancy and delivery. Insurance companies are all about the bottom line.

Of course, using your logic, insurance shouldn't cover pre-natal visits or childbirth, since they are elective too.

lookout123 · 10-08-2004, 08:24 AM

Quote:

(BTW, Lookout, you mean your health insurance plan doesn't cover your wife's visits to the gynecologist? So she can only be covered if she goes to an ob/gyn when pregnant? That doesn't make any sense.

her doctor visits are covered. just not a prescription for BC pills or the shot or anything like that.

and i wouldn't change my job for insurance issues

10-08-2004, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with.

It's elective, not essential care.

What!? Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh Wolf? So everybody should just either be celibate or have 14 kids. And by that reasoning health insurance companies shouldn't cover pregnancy and birth, either. Right? Having a baby is an elective, too. Lets have health insurance companies that put disclaimers in on covering any part of a woman's reproductive system. If she plays, she pays. You've come a long way, baby.

10-07-2004, 01:15 PM	#1
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	Legal misconception? OK, i'm not catholic so i think the anti-birth control stance is pretty goofy, but why should the state have the right to tell an organization that it must provide insurance coverage for birth control? the state doesn't tell companies, if they have to have insurance or what kind , or at what cost to the employees. why is availability of insurance coverage for birth control a legal matter? Catholic charities article __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

10-07-2004, 01:25 PM	#2
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	I don't see the problem. If you are going to do business, you do it the same as everyone else. They don't pay taxes as it is, why are they bitching? __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

10-07-2004, 01:31 PM	#3
lookout123 changed his status to single Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Right behind you. No, the other side. Posts: 10,308	the way i understand it, they an offshoot of the catholic church, but not closely related enough for the state. being a catholic organization they are morally opposed to the use of birth control and a requirement to provide B.C. coverage would be appalling to them. my question isn't about the idea of BC vs anti-BC, but about the legality of telling a company that they must provide coverage for it. there are many things my insurance plan doesn't cover, and don't quote me on this, but i don't think BC is covered under my plan. insurance coverage isn't standardized so i wonder how this can be a requirement. __________________ Getting knocked down is no sin, it's not getting back up that's the sin

10-07-2004, 01:48 PM	#7
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	So they're a company that just happens to be catholic instead of the other way around? If that is the case then they should be free to do as they please as long as it's not against legitimate health regulations and it is stated clearly in the hiring practices. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

10-07-2004, 01:56 PM	#9
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	You're going to play the Vatican Roulett! YIPEE! Though, actually, tequila is more to blame than Rome for the last kid... __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

10-07-2004, 01:43 PM	#4
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	The article says it's a state law that applies to everyone. States can pass laws. They have that right. For example, there is a federal minimum wage. Some states have passed laws to raise their own minimum wage above the federal level. This is similar. I don't see any problem, in theory, in passing a law requiring certain benefits be provided to employees in a particular state. In practice, there may be a problem when all the businesses leave your state.

10-07-2004, 01:47 PM	#6
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	The Church may be able to get around it by firing everyone and re-hiring them as consultants or contract workers.

10-07-2004, 03:45 PM	#10
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	I think the problem is that you get into some outside entity controlling your personal life either way (BTW, Lookout, you mean your health insurance plan doesn't cover your wife's visits to the gynecologist? So she can only be covered if she goes to an ob/gyn when pregnant? That doesn't make any sense. Its cheaper to cover a year's supply of birth control pills and a pelvic exam then it is to cover 9 months' worth of visits to an ob/gyn and birthing costs, or isn't pregnancy covered either under your plan? If not, I'd switch to a job that gives better health benefits). On the one hand I can see the government's point: The Catholic Church is forcing its religous stance about BC on its employees. In theory if I am a Jew working for the Catholics, they are taking away my freedom of religous choice by specifically banning birth control from my health care plan because of THEIR religous agenda. On the other hand, if I am a member of a different faith, and I feel that strongly about it, why on earth would I go to work for a Catholic charity anyhow? This one is a puzzler to me.

10-08-2004, 12:45 AM	#11
wolf lobber of scimitars Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phila Burbs Posts: 20,774	Birth control shouldn't be covered by insurance to begin with. It's elective, not essential care. __________________ wolf eht htiw og "Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception." --G. Edward Griffin The Creature from Jekyll Island High Priestess of the Church of the Whale Penis

10-08-2004, 04:09 AM	#12
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	I believe this was pushed by womens rights groups. If you provide any medical coverage, you have to provide the females with BC drugs and the choice of an ob/gyn as primary care Doc, if desired. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)