START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
901,388 people care about Women's Rights

Employers’ Opposition to Birth Control is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Employers’ Opposition to Birth Control is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

When the Supreme Court ruled this summer that Hobby Lobby and other similar “closely held” for-profit businesses could refuse to allow birth control coverage in their insurance plans due to religious objections, and then similarly decided the same for non-profit religious organizations as well, the administration scrambled to once more find a way to allow employees of those groups the same no co-pay birth control options that those who had insurance elsewhere were allowed.

The original accommodation (having the business or organization sign a form that would simply tell the insurer they refused, and then the insurer provide the coverage anyway with federal assistance) was seen as still being an infringement on the liberty of the employer, and a new workaround had to be developed.

Now such another accommodation has been offered. And, unsurprisingly, the employers still aren’t happy about it. Why? Because this was never about birth control, but about trying to break down the Affordable Care Act all together.

Previously, those who objected to birth control coverage were asked to sign a form stating their objection and provide it to a third party who would then arrange for the coverage for the employees who wanted birth control.

Now, the employer simply notifies the Department of Health and Humans Services, and the HHS will contact the third party and arrange that coverage. By expressing their desire not to cover birth control, the logic goes, that allows the employers to wash their hands of the whole affair, and forced the administration to take on the additional responsibility of getting that no copay medical care to the people who require it.

That’s not good enough for the legal representatives who are behind the lawsuits, who have essentially decided that anything less than their employees being denied birth control (or at least being forced to pay for it while others don’t) means that their rights have been violated. “Wait, religious nonprofits can opt out, but their insurance provider, that they have contracted with, and who they are paying to provide health insurance is required to give their employees free abortion pills? Precisely. Nothing changes,” writes Matthew Clark of the American Center for Law and Justice. “You can dress it up.  You can call it what you like, but the Obama Administration is still forcing religious non-profits to provide abortion pills for their employees.”

The ACLJ isn’t the only group to say that the administration still isn’t allowing them their “religious freedom” to block employees from easily accessing affordable birth control. “Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said, in a statement posted on the USCCB Facebook page, the bishops would study the rules in depth but were disappointed at first look,” reports Christian Century. “Kurtz said ‘the regulations would not broaden the ‘religious employer’ exemption to encompass all employers with sincerely held religious objections to the mandate. Instead, the regulations would only modify the ‘accommodation,’ under which the mandate still applies and still requires provision of the objectionable coverage.’”

What the religious right response to this accommodation makes clear is that when it comes to the court fight, birth control itself is just the facade they are using to pursue their case. In reality, these non-profits and businesses are really using their lawsuits to set a precedent for what the definition is of a “religious” employer, and what that “religious” entity gets to do to opt out of federal law.

The religious right is fighting to allow any business or non-profit that has a religious person at the helm to be declared a religious employer exempt from governmental mandates. This isn’t just about opting out of birth control coverage. This is about being able to discriminate in your hiring practices and refuse to offer a job to a person of a different sexual orientation, or a religion you don’t approve of, or no religion at all. It is about being allowed to choose who you serve as a client or a customer. It is about being allowed to fire an employee who becomes pregnant and is unmarried. It is about being able to refuse to offer maternity leave, or keep a job open for someone who takes it.

Fighting the birth control mandate was always about religious freedom, but they have now made it clear that contraception was simply the tip of the iceberg. The demands that will come from classifying any business or organization with an allegedly devout leadership at the helm as a “religious” employer will continue to grow, and as one governmental mandate is opted out of, all other legal protections will fall by the wayside as well.

They want the autonomy of the churches, but with the ability to earn massive profits at the same time. Sadly, if the courts continue on this path, they are going to get it.

 

Read more: , , ,

Photo credit: Thinkstock

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

133 comments

+ add your own
8:03AM PDT on Aug 30, 2014

Unfortunately no, Karen H.

5:57AM PDT on Aug 30, 2014

ty

11:53PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

I am reminded of the words of Elizabeth Cady Stanton a social activist and feminist wrote in 1881
“You will find that every form of religion which has breathed upon this earth has degraded women.”

Also Anne Lamott wrote “You can safely assume you’ve created a god in your own image when it turns out that your god hates all the same people you do.”

Susan B Anthony once wrote” I distrust people who know so well what god wants them to do, because I notice that it always coincides with their own desires.”

Here's the link to the petition and videos of Ernst and McConnell

http://front.moveon.org/tv-ads-expose-senate-hopefuls-ernst-and-mcconnells-ties-to-the-koch-brothers/#.VAFzzmNdyxg

I wish there was more I could do besides sign petitions. I wish we could really wake people of to how insane our situation is here in America and how crazy it has become and how imperative it is that we stand up as a nation and make it stop.

But there is too great a corporate media control aimed at keeping every one so divided and distracted from what is happening and how bad it is.

11:47PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

So true Marcia,

I just signed a petition and also sent the petition and the videos of this BS to my twitter feed to get more people to sign the petition.

This is a world gone mad driven by greed and religious insanity all in the name of control and profits. It almost appears unstoppable.

11:24PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

Nothing short of dictatorial control will please these ppl. It's not about "freedom" because their "freedom" cannot be defined as controlling the behavior of others. They will not be happy till women are their serfs or wards. Women do not possess agency or freedom on their own. They won't be happy till low waged women cannot afford any birth control and they can resume firing pregnant workers.

10:38PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

The Catholic Church, their headquarters are considered to be a small country, though religion per constitutional provisions are supposed to be separate from law, it has become very much entwined and the Catholic church welds to much power as both a religious organization with a deplorable past (not just recent history but all the way back to its inception) but lets not forget that they are a country as well. Now if any other country were to come into our country welding as much influence over our laws, I suspect there would be quite an uproar. Why is there not an uproar when it is both a country and a religion that is so entrenched in our government and laws? Religious freedoms, since when did religious freedoms allow for someone to impose their religious views onto someone else that does not share their views, let alone get laws to back them in doing so? Oh, yeah, since the Supreme court became 5-4 Republican controlled. If you have not heard the recording of Mitch McConnell this past week speaking at a Koch brother event, you really need to hear it and also click the link for the transcript - it is very clear that the republicans plan on owning the government and even though they will not have the votes needed, they will have the power to push things through a ryder attached to a bill, any bill. They plan on doing away with anything and everything that doesn't help big corporate interest or the 1%, Mitch McConnell actually talks about the supreme court finally being 5-4 in

5:28PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

To put this in another perspective, would my employer have the right to tell me, "You must take this chemo drug because it will save your life, and I affirm life"? If I choose quality of life over quantity, does my employer have any right to force his (or her) belief on me?

12:57PM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

Alex-All those pills and devices? if you read the whole story there are only 2 pills and 2 iuds, both of these pills are touted as abortifacts and 1 of the iuds has KILLED over 15,000 women

Original Message:
-----------------
Hello,

Alex left a comment on the following article:
Employers' Opposition to Birth Control is Just the Tip of the Iceberg
It is frustrating that this issue continues to be derailed by the people who don't understand the difference between contraceptive medicines/devices and abortive ones. It is worrisome enough how many laypeople don't know the difference, but it becomes a much more serious issue when you see business owners and even politicians spouting the same ignorant nonsense. The vast majority, if not all, of the pills and devices being denied by these new rules are NOT abortion-causing. They are conception-blocking. They do not allow the egg to become fertilized in the first place. I fear some confusion arises from devices or medicaments that have a SECONDARY function where they prevent a fertilized egg from embedding in the womb on the rare and unlikely occasion that the initial contraceptive guard fails (all contraceptives run the risk of failure - that is why condoms PLUS spermicides are more effective than either on their own). However, that is not their primary intended function. They are contraceptives. They PREVENT conception and therefore are NOT abortive. We can shout it from the rooftops, but sadly it seems to make no differen

5:24AM PDT on Aug 29, 2014

Who the hell do these employers think they are? God! No your not. My questions. Going to keep that person employeed and paid in order to keep up with inflation for at least 18 years? Second question? Going to pay funds into a special account for each child for health and education? I bet not!

2:51PM PDT on Aug 28, 2014

i wish these hateful people would stop using my religion to control others!
stop calling it "Christ - ianity" because Christ has NOTHING to do with it.

i hate that these sociopaths connect God and hateful control - they demean what is meant to be loving a beautiful - just like pedophiles demean childhood.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Oh my! I can only wish my dog loved a bath this much! She doesn't however.

Scanned but didn't bother to read this article, since I'm already living it. Managing my health problems…

I'm not minimizing the suffering -- just surprised by the numbers of decline.

meet our writers

Colleen H. Colleen H. is an Online Campaigner with Care2 and a recent transplant to San Francisco from the East... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.