Judge sides with company on contraceptive coverage
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday temporarily prevented the Obama administration from forcing a Christian publishing company to provide its employees with certain contraceptives under the new health care law.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction sought by Tyndale House Publishers, which doesn't want to provide employees with contraceptives that it equates with abortion.
At issue are contraceptives such as Plan B and IUDs. If a woman already is pregnant, the Plan B pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, and according to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. The Plan B pill may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. IUDs mainly work by blocking sperm but may also have the same uterus effect. To Tyndale, these methods are not morally different than abortion.
Tyndale, based in Carol Stream, Ill., says it provides its 260 employees with coverage for some contraceptives. The company and its president and CEO, Mark D. Taylor, filed the lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department last month.
"The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance," wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. He said that if the company doesn't comply with the mandate, it is subject to government fines and lawsuits.
Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.
Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.
Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."
He added: "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."
The Health and Human Service Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton granted a preliminary injunction sought by Tyndale House Publishers, which doesn't want to provide employees with contraceptives that it equates with abortion.
At issue are contraceptives such as Plan B and IUDs. If a woman already is pregnant, the Plan B pill has no effect. It prevents ovulation or fertilization of an egg, and according to the medical definition, pregnancy doesn't begin until a fertilized egg implants itself into the wall of the uterus. The Plan B pill may also be able to prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. IUDs mainly work by blocking sperm but may also have the same uterus effect. To Tyndale, these methods are not morally different than abortion.
Tyndale, based in Carol Stream, Ill., says it provides its 260 employees with coverage for some contraceptives. The company and its president and CEO, Mark D. Taylor, filed the lawsuit against the Health and Human Services Department last month.
"The contraceptive coverage mandate affirmatively compels the plaintiffs to violate their religious beliefs in order to comply with the law and avoid the sanctions that would be imposed for their noncompliance," wrote Walton, an appointee of President George W. Bush. He said that if the company doesn't comply with the mandate, it is subject to government fines and lawsuits.
Walton acknowledged that the government has broad, compelling interests in promoting public health and ensuring that women have equal access to health care, but he said the question "is whether the government has shown that the application of the contraceptive coverage mandate to the plaintiffs furthers those compelling interests," underlying "to the plaintiffs" in the text. Nothing in Walton's order applied to anyone other than Tyndale.
Walton said that the government hasn't offered any proof that mandatory insurance for the specific types of contraceptives that Tyndale objects to furthers the government's compelling interests.
Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."
He added: "The Obama administration is not entitled to disregard religious freedom."
The Health and Human Service Department declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation.
".... Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish ...."
Â
Only problem with that argument is that there is absolutely NO mention of IUD's or Plan B (or any other contraceptives, for that matter) in the bible.
So here's the thing. What happens between a doctor and patient is supposed to be absolutely private and the company has no right to the knowledge of what an employee or their spouse have going on. So in telling the insurance company to not cover certain specifics, they are, in effect, putting their rotting little noses into their business. This is a form of birth control, plain and simple. Their moral conscience has no place between a woman and her doctor. For some women, the IUD is a better choice than the pill or whatnot and I am not sure that when the dust settles this is going to stand. I don't understand how this is still a conversation. An employer does not need to know what type of birth control they support or not, it is not something they need to get involved in. What next, tell them what sexual activity they find acceptable? How does the employers religious or moral or ethical standpoint impact my decisions? When I want someone elses opinion I will ask for it. This is not covering abortion, it is covering pregnancy prevention and there is a clear line between them. I feel like for those that don't see it, there is no truth they will hear. You cannot use religion to hire, it may not be a consideration. For that reason alone, there should be a law that they cannot use religious reasons to restrict coverage. Period. If you can't justify it without the religious thing, don't offer any benefits, just offer a better package to get private coverage. Then you don't have to worry about it.
 @andyourpointis Totally agree w/ you that IUDs are preventative  contraception. But before each procedure the hospital does contact insurance providers to confirm coverage for treatment. This is true for leg surgery, abortion, placing IUDs, brain surgery, CAT scans etc. And insurers do decide whether to cover certain procedures. I had insurance when I got my IUD, but they denied coverage for it.
 @andyourpointis There are a few finer points of the law missing from your statement. For one, churches aren't required to hire people that are not of their beliefs in certain situations (See note at end of post.)
Â
There ARE differing views of when pregnancy begins, and differing views of when life begins. Some of these views are religious in nature. But even Webmd (which is apparently NOT a religious establishment) states " A pregnancy starts with fertilization, when a woman's egg joins with a man's sperm".
Â
Even we think a particular religion has crazy beliefs, that doesn't give us the right to mandate how they treat their employees.
Â
It's sort of the norm now for many types of companies, but in bygone years, various groups would refuse to hire smokers because of religious beliefs. That was perfectly legal.
Â
Note:
Â
From Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703], "Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.
Â
Â
@Commenter87643 @andyourpointis - the only problem with your arguement is that this 'christian publishing company' isn't a church. It's a public company that happens to publish books for the Christian community.
Â
Comparing them to the rules that a church has is like comparing a grocery store to the rules a resteraunt must comply with...
Â
Â
 @FormerMarineSgt  @Commenter87643  @andyourpointis It MAY qualify as a school though, and if it requires it's employees to have certain beliefs (such as a belief in the Christian god), it still qualifies under SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703]
If old men could get pregnant, this would not be an issue. But you can bet your assets that their insurance covers Viagra. Â Trying to get this straight. They'are against contraceptives, against abortion, vilify single mothers and families with more than two children. Â Just so typical. Â
 @DT Not against all contraceptives. The article states "Tyndale, based in Carol Stream, Ill., says it provides its 260 employees with coverage for some contraceptives."
Hooray! We're back to 1950. When polio killed kids, husbands beat their wifes, and drunk drivers careened home from a three martini late lunch.
Â
Oh ya, college was free (socialism) the GI bill was in grateful recognition to service to this country (socialism) and unions called the shot (SOCIALISM!!!)
It is one thing (that I understand) to not want to provide abortions and Plan B due to the belief that life begins at conception. We will never settle that argument because it is a question of opinion. BUT to categorize IUDs with abortion is totally out of line. IUDs are preventative, simply turning away all the little spermies instead of allowing one to fuse with an egg creating a new life. We need to allow any woman who wants to be sterile that option, they probably understand their own circumstances and ability to support a child more than the government or their employers.
 @SoTweetie Not all IUD's work that way.
"The progesterone-releasing IUDs also cause a subtle change in the endometrial environment that impairs the implantation of the egg in the uterine wall. This type of IUD also alters the cervical mucus, which, in turn, inhibits sperm from passing through the cervix" (From Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD Pathology University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, on Webmd answers your questions)
 @Commenter87643 Thanks for the info. I frequently joke that WebMD is my healthcare provider.Â
 @SoTweetie  Plan B is not even CLOSE to an abortion. It STOPS conception.  If those old jerks could get pregnant themselves, they'd provide free contraceptives and abortions.  Or better yet, like most of these sanctimonious religious conservative poseurs,, they can just take their mistress or girlfriend to their private doctor for a quiet abortion.  Happens all the time. Â
 @SoTweetie The IUD is also a long-term option with a very high success rate, and there are no pills to miss or forget about or things to insert. And it (along with Implanon) also happen to cost significantly more than the basic pill (although stretch that out over the length of the IUD or implant and it's usually worth it).
 @spacegoddess Believe me, I paid 500 for my own. Three years ago. Would have been nice if my employer paid but it was important to me so I went thru with it, while in college on a part time minimum wage income. There seems to be a fast decline in personal accountability here in the US
 @SoTweetie  @alwaysbusy  @spacegoddess "It is not the same."? What isn't "the same"? An IUD and an abortion?
Did you even READ the article you are defending - the one about the religious folks who want to not have to pay for CONTRACEPTION? The same mentality insanity that thinks handing a woman an aspirin is going to keep her from getting pregnant?
Â
And I can unlike that comment if I read it again - your posts have been so all over the barn it's hard to tell what you are actually saying.
 @OrcasThunder A good man planning to have sex with a woman would contribute to the cost of contraception.
 @OrcasThunder  @alwaysbusy  @spacegoddess It is not the same. I have an IUD. I believe insurers and religious employers should have to pay for them. Like I said in my original comment which you 'like'd
 @SoTweetie  @alwaysbusy  @spacegoddess "but to the religious person who thinks that funding an abortion puts the weight of murder on their spirit, no."
Â
OK, please - explain why an IUD is "the same" as abortion...?
 @SoTweetie "A good man would help pay"
So...you are saying that those who claim religious reasons for not paying for a woman's contraception are NOT "good men"...?
Â
Hard to argue against that...
 @OrcasThunder Women have different needs than men. A good man would help pay, it does take two to tango.
 @alwaysbusy  @spacegoddess In yours and my opinion yes, but to the religious person who thinks that funding an abortion puts the weight of murder on their spirit, no. If a religious company does not want to pay for abortions or Plan B then maybe the tax payers should just bear the burden. As much as their faith cannot stop a woman from getting an abortion on her own dime, she cannot force her morally opposed employer to pay for an abortion.Â
 @SoTweetie  @spacegoddess So it's OK with you that a woman must pay more for her medical needs, just because she if a female?
 @SoTweetie  @spacegoddess This issue is not about personal accountability. It is far more cost effective to provide contraceptives than force a child onto a woman (and society) who is unable or unwilling to care for it. Also, what if a woman were raped? Wouldn't it be better if the company she worked for provided contraception such as an IUD or morning after pill instead of making abortion or adoption the only option?
 @SoTweetie I think the place needs to provide coverage. The business cannot discriminate based off religion, therefore, they cannot discriminate on what their employees do based off the employee's religion (or no religion).I believe in family planning, and if that means not having a child when your young so you can have one later in life and provide for it better, then that is a good thing.Also note: many of those who tout pro-life, are also the ones who tout the anti-entitlement argument....I don't see how they could live with them selves if they had it both ways."Sorry mam, you have to have your child even though you work at Walmart and make 8$/hr and have no husband to help care for him"Â
 @Jalharad For the religious it is a violation of their rights to have to fund abortions. I think they should have to fund all preventative care but if someone neglects the responsibility of protecting themselves from pregnancy and cannot afford an abortion then they will suffer the consequences. It is not that if a company doesn't pay for it then the pregnancy has to be carried to term. Either the woman can find funds to cover the cost or she can seriously consider what is best for the unborn child (adoption)
 @SoTweetie  @Jalharad "Not only is it a woman's right, but her RESPONSIBILITY to control when she has a child."
Tell that to the guys who rape her - and to the religious nuts who screw her again when they tell her she can't have what she NEEDS in order to be that "responsible" woman you tweet about.
Â
And again, what does an IUD have to do with abortion?
 @sotweetie:Â
There is a major flaw in your argument here.Â
Â
 When an employer pays for their employee's health insurance/benefits, they do not get an itemized list (3 colonoscopires, 1 labor & delivery, 2 masectomies, 4 cornary stents...etc). They pay a set flat premium every month for ALL the benefits included in the coverage.Â
Â
If the employer chooses a plan that included Rx coverage, most likely it will ALSO include Plab B since technically it is a prescription medication (even though there is no actual prescription required). It is not broken out as a seperate "line item" from all other precssriptions.
Â
With a "self-funded" plan, it owuld be slightly different. In that cacse, the benefits administrators would process all claims for a given period (sayt 10 days) then tell the employer how much the total is - then the employer would pay that amount to the administrator who in turn would release the payments to cover the claims. Boeing's Traditional Medical Plan works like this. But, there are still sete benefits & premiums involved - there is no "line item" breakout to show what is paid per "service".
 @OrcasThunder When someone goes to have an abortion, the clinic contacts the insurance to request coverage for the procedure. Religious businesses do not want to pay those costs. It is not as difficult to understand as you are trying to make it.
 @SoTweetie "As it is, you pay a lump um of taxes and the government divvies them up, unlike medical treatments."
You have no idea of how insurance works, do you?
The medical insurance premium goes into a general pool of money, for all patients, all ages and all genders. NONE of it is earmarked for ANY specific use, patient, or medical procedure. The amount of coverage is the same for the person who just joined the plan as it is for the person who has been on it for decades. THERE IS NO SEPARATION BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL NEED!
Â
"The cost of each medical procedure is either approved or denied by the insurance provider,"
That is not true - the cost of each procedure is covered by the kind of insurance the individual has...and ALL persons with that plan are entitled to the same coverage.
Â
Â
 @OrcasThunder  @Jalharad Why would anyone other than the parents of a child be responsible for raising it? Neither a judge nor a business owner would be liable.
Â
Not only is it a woman's right, but her RESPONSIBILITY to control when she has a child.Â
 @OrcasThunder If each act of war was detailed on your list of taxes then you could better dispute paying for it. As it is, you pay a lump um of taxes and the government divvies them up, unlike medical treatments. The cost of each medical procedure is either approved or denied by the insurance provider, making a legitimate space for religious groups to voice their concerns about funding abortion and Plan B.Â
Â
It is not OK for any person or entity to press their religious views or lack thereof on anyone.
Â
Contraception is a major part of preventative care, hence why I think employers should have to cover it. And someone that is not pregnant cannot miscarry, so that answers your last question.
 @OrcasThunder  @alwaysbusy  @SoTweetie  @Jalharad Well I would have to say that you're absolutely correct about that! :-)
 @alwaysbusy  @SoTweetie  @Jalharad Methinks they are already confused...
 @OrcasThunder  @SoTweetie  @Jalharad Careful, that there is common sense! The so called religious right doesn't go for that kinda thing. You might confuse them
 @SoTweetie  @Jalharad "or she can seriously consider what is best for the unborn child (adoption)"
Are the judge and/or the company going to step up and support that child?
Not likely.
And why do you assume that she will NEED to adopt the kid? Isn't it more a matter of her RIGHT to determine WHEN she has the child?
You people rant about the welfare moms who keep having kids - one would think that you would FAVOR contraceptives for every one of those women!
 @SoTweetie  @Jalharad " For the religious it is a violation of their rights to have to fund abortions."
So...war is a violation of my moral code - why do I have to pay taxes to support it?
Why is it OK for a company to force it's religious beliefs on it's employees?
Â
"I think they should have to fund all preventative care"
But...isn't contraception a major part of preventative care - doesn't preventing unwanted pregnancies factor greatly in preventing pregnancy related medical problems, including dangerous miscarriages?
Matthew S. Bowman, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which brought the suit on behalf of Tyndale, said in an email that Bible publishers "should be free to do business according to the book that they publish."
----------
Leaving aside the fact that preventing a pregnancy is NOT the same as aborting a pregnancy, which may come as news to the stuck-in-medieval-times Catholic Church....
Â
The closest the Bible comes to a statement on abortion is a quote from King Solomon the Wise. He says that it's better not to be born than to be born into abject misery. That's right, the Bible supports abortion.
Â
The forced-birthers usually trot out a different quotation, the one about God saying "I knew you when you were in your mother's womb," but if we're honest, that hardly qualifies as a judgment on abortion one way or the other. Divine omniscience means that God "knows" every piece of matter in the universe. His knowledge of something, taken by itself, cannot therefore be considered a determination of its worthiness to live.
Â
Let's also not forget the multitudes of miscarriages that God causes. In terms of sheer numbers, God is without question the biggest abortionist of all time.
Â
Lastly, I would direct peoples' attention to the recent death in Ireland of a Hindu woman who was repeatedly denied a life-saving abortion by the Catholic hospital she was staying at. Guess what? She died, along with the fetus. Seems like the opposite of "pro-life" to me.
 @Sutekh Let us not forget who the "Alliance Defending Freedom" group is, either, as that's an important little detail. They are a group of far right, extremist Christians who seek theocratic measures; they are closely related to radical televangelists, like James Dobson, who says women shouldn't work outside the home if they have children and teaching tolerance is promoting homosexuality.
Â
One of ADF's most recent efforts came right before the election, when over a thousand extremist Christian leaders endorsed a political candidate--guess which!--in hopes of prompting IRS investigations. They think they should be tax exempt AND able to influence politics; they want it all, they want theocracy, and so they were hoping to prompt action which would enable them to get the law banning them from making endorsements declared unconstitutional. They called it "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," and nothing's been done to them. So an atheist group is suing the IRS.
Â
The ADF wants absolute control over women's bodies, wants to "correct" or destroy the lives of homosexual people, and wants our nation to make decisions according to a 2,000-year-old book that condones things like stoning and marrying rapists. I am so tired of seeing them and the Family Research Council casually mentioned in news, as if they're just you're run-of-the-mill religious group. They're not. They are extremists, and it's not at all surprising they're behind this.
 @Sutekh when there's a 'holocaust' happening, many want to strongly dissociate themselves from participating in the crime. Extremes don't tell what statistics do. Our nation murders it's offspring (just a tad before they're sprung)
 @cheekygesturton  @Sutekh Strange - I was under the impression was who pays for the contraceptives...which would clearly cut down the number of abortions...
And don't tell the women to stop having sex...unless YOU are willing to follow hand in hand with that concept yourself.