Obama Passes Rule Requiring Contraception Coverage

[celestial]

...fundies everywhere froth at mouth with rage, I'm sure.

Here's an article about the new law administrative rule.

[Austin]

This is huge news, and I've been listening to CNN all day and not a single mention of it.

Opponents of contraception had lobbied hard for a broad exemption that would have allowed any religiously-affiliated employer to opt out of providing such coverage. Fortunately, the Obama administration rejected that push and decided to maintain the narrow religious exemption that it initially proposed. Only houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith will be exempt. Religiously-affiliated employers who do not qualify for the exemption and are not currently offering contraceptive coverage may apply for transitional relief for a one-year period to give them time to determine how to comply with the rule.

The Obama people need to do a better job of publicizing these things. Most Americans are highly in favor of contraception.

[Grace]

This is great news!

My BC is SO expensive even after insurance. I pay $120 for a 3 month supply (it WAS $60 month to month) because it's considered "3rd Tier" and I CANNOT take regular run-of-the-mil $4 a month pills. What really grinds my grits about it though is that the new law won't go into effect until about the time I plan on going off BC for the Baby-Makin' time. <--------------OMG, how did I get grown up enough to be planning on trying to get pregnant :shock:

[polabear]

...fundies everywhere froth at mouth with rage, I'm sure.

Here's an article about the new law.

It's not a law, its an administrative rule . But, its still AWESOME.

(A new president could change the rule as easily as Obama has made it, which is the main difference.)

[mockingbird]

Ah, this makes me really happy! (I hope it does not get changed by the next president as polabear said.)

My BC is so expensive even with insurance and it is really grating to me because I'm taking it for medical reasons. I'm not anti-contraceptive at all but it bugs me that this movement could potentially restrict my access to legitimate, required medical treatment - including by driving costs up or making it necessary to prove a "medical need". The generic version of my BC gives me terrible stomach/digestive side effects so I have to go through hoops with insurance every time to get the "real" one (but my real one is great so I don't want to change it!). It's such a headache. It usually costs anywhere between $100-150 and the pharmacy I use must have a deal with my insurance because when I tried to transfer it, the new place wanted to charge me $100 A BOX (one month, the prescription is usually for 3 months). I always joke with my mom that I should just go in and ask for Plan B every day because I don't even need a prescription for that, yet BC is so controlled (obviously I know it would not be a good plan to take that daily, I just find the situation ironic).

Anyway, I'm glad this passed... I think it's a private decision and keeping people from butting into other people's contraceptive and medical decisions is a smart move, here.

[ilovetchotchkes]

This is great news!

My BC is SO expensive even after insurance. I pay $120 for a 3 month supply (it WAS $60 month to month) because it's considered "3rd Tier" and I CANNOT take regular run-of-the-mil $4 a month pills. What really grinds my grits about it though is that the new law won't go into effect until about the time I plan on going off BC for the Baby-Makin' time. <--------------OMG, how did I get grown up enough to be planning on trying to get pregnant :shock:

Terrifying innit? What's even scarier is when you GET pregnant and you're like "oh shit ! what did we DO" even if the baby was planned and 110% wanted! Its like one of those, you can't go back after it !

[starfish]

Finally!!!! Hello, it's 2012, it's about time.

Obama probably does not want to crow about it b/c he's all about getting along with the other side, when the other side could care less about getting along with anyone....

[Hane]

[old]In 1973, my b/c pills cost $3 a month, even without insurance coverage.[/old]

[celestial]

It's not a law, its an administrative rule . But, its still AWESOME.

(A new president could change the rule as easily as Obama has made it, which is the main difference.)

Thanks for the clarification; that is a very important distinction, actually. I'll try to change the thread title if I can...

[gilora]

Finally!!!! Hello, it's 2012, it's about time.

Obama probably does not want to crow about it b/c he's all about getting along with the other side, when the other side could care less about getting along with anyone....

QFT.

It always chapped my hide that plans covered impotence drugs but didn't cover birth control. As I recall, when Viagra hit the market the debate was how many pills per month should be covered by insurance. After all, a man's need to have sex is more important than a woman's need to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

[Katiebug]

Are the folks over at the Catholic Answers forums foaming at the mouth over this? Wait, don't tell me - I'll go check for myself. It's snowing and I have nothing better to do. :lol:

[Clementine]

The pro-lifers should be thrilled about this. I am sure that cheap and easy accessible birth control pills is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a result a lot of abortions.

I somehow suspect that they are not...

[Antigone]

thank god, finally something has happened.

SO, PRAISE THE LORD. Now we won't go broke trying to be sure I won't get pregnant. Somehow all of the ladies in the family have been blessed with an uterus that could be considered a fundie's wet-dream. lol.

Clementine, that was my first thought. They don't seem happy with ANYTHING, imo.... it's kind of sucky. :(

[Koala]

This is huge news, and I've been listening to CNN all day and not a single mention of it.

The Obama people need to do a better job of publicizing these things. Most Americans are highly in favor of contraception.

I know. I am looking at ABC and CNN and can't find a thing.

[Tanaqui]

Finally!

I actually did a happy dance in the middle of the drugstore the first time I got BC in Scotland and they told me it was free.

[Austin]

The pro-lifers should be thrilled about this. I am sure that cheap and easy accessible birth control pills is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and as a result a lot of abortions.

I somehow suspect that they are not...

I would suspect you are right. Because it's not really about the precious "pre-born baybee". It's about controlling women's lives. If women cannot control their fertility, then we have no self-determination at all.

[GeoBQn]

Yay, although I wish it had happened before my husband and I spent months making phone calls and faxes to get our insurance to classify my BC as preventative care since I take it to treat PCOS.

I can only imagine how conservatives and religious organizations are going to try to worm their way out of this one. When Wisconsin passed a law requiring all employers with commercial insurance plans to cover birth control, the Diocese of Madison and a Catholic-run hospital in town tried to become self-insured so they would be exempt. That turned out to be much too expensive for them. The Diocese then sent out a press release saying that while they were being forced to cover birth control, anybody in their employ who actually used their insurance to cover birth control would be considered "in contempt of the Church" and that's "grounds for termination." I'm not sure how they ever thought they could get away with that without violating HIPAA.

[ElphabaGalinda]

I wish birth control was covered here in Canada. That stuff is expensive, especially since I have no coverage anymore. This is awesome though and I hope they keep offering that forever.

[FakePigtails]

Are the folks over at the Catholic Answers forums foaming at the mouth over this? Wait, don't tell me - I'll go check for myself. It's snowing and I have nothing better to do. :lol:

Almost surely. I have an extremely conservative Catholic facebook friend who posted complaining about it as soon as it became public.

I've been avoiding the news section of CAF. It's too bad for my blood pressure. I went to check for this though and am shocked that the thread on it's only 3 pages long so far: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=636895

ETA: I found another thread focused on the year some employers will have to adjust: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=636967

[freejoytoo]

I can't believe it's only just being covered in the US. Contraception is free in the UK and has been for several years, for which I am very thankful! Well done Obama!

[doggie]

the whole no bc is socuh a outdated thing. I mean following a 2k old book about babies is a bit foolish. The pope needs to pull his head outof his butt. poor countries can't afford the babies he forces on them.

[atheistjd]

Thanks for the clarification; that is a very important distinction, actually. I'll try to change the thread title if I can...

OK, sorry to be wonky but I have to further clarify.

This is an interim final rule - it was actually proposed on August 1, 2011 as a result of the Women's Health Amendment to the ACA (and a very thorough study by the IOM stating that these services, among many others, like mammograms, were essential preventative health care for women). When a rule is proposed, there is typically a comment period where the public gets to send in comments (which are all public - if you really want to get mad, take a look at some of the comments; see, e.g., http://www.usccb.org/news/2011/11-168.cfm) on the proposed rule. The pro-women community (I refuse to even go so far as to say pro-choice, because this is NOT an abortion issue, although if you want to get me started...) was very concerned because of the strongly-worded comments by VERY influential Catholic and religious organizations and the fact that Obama actually met with the Bishops trying to block this coverage for all women.

The exciting news here is that the Administration basically came back and said thanks for your comments, but we won't be letting YOUR anti-woman values dictate the rights of women working for employers who are not just churches/primarily employ people of the same religion - we are keeping the (appropriately) narrow religious exemptions, tyvm. The coverage will now definitely include women working, for example, for religious hospitals or universities. Church employers are still exempt, and all religious employers who don't currently cover contraceptives now have an extra year to comply. Of course, that is not enough for them. There are two lawsuits that have been filed, so this is certainly not a closed issue, but at least the Obama Administration made the right call.

Also, I just want to thank whoever linked to the Catholic forum for my rising blood pressure. The thread over there includes such brilliant policy insights as this:

You are not progressive enough. I want mandatory insurance to cover, free of charge, IVF, womb-for-hire, surrogate uterus procedures so that Elton John and his gay partner can get babies, as well as surgical sterilization, sex change surgery, and breast augmentation surgery procedures for transgender and transvestite folks. Also, let's not forget Cher's daughter Chaz Bono - it's only fair that she (and similar people) should get all those surgeries paid for by tax payers, to have their breasts removed and whatnot, and make them look like men, right? Finally, let's not forget the "Cat Man" who suffered anguish because he wanted to look like a feline, and he went under the knife and got his ears and face shaped like a tiger or something. As compassionate progressives, I think we should feel Cat Man's pain and anguish, and pay for his "catification" surgeries, together with the college kids' birth control pills, middle aged men and women's vasectomies and tubal ligations, and Nancy Pelosi's botox treatment.

P.S. I believe I'm a beer keg right now, and I'm in anguish to store some beer in my belly. Let's lobby Congress that my health insurance should cover a sixpack of good lager or ale, every other day!!!!

:angry-banghead: :angry-cussing: :angry-banghead: :angry-cussing: :angry-banghead: :angry-cussing: :angry-banghead: :angry-cussing: :angry-banghead:

p.s. rule can be read here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08 ... -19684.pdf