Do you have health coverage?

<p>I checked my personal copy of the Bible and couldn’t find one reference to birth control pills or to IUDs. For that matter, pregnancy is considered a natural process and not a sacred, God-driven occurrence it is made out to be. I did find a whole bunch about subjugation, though, so I guess they are covered.</p>

<p>I fully expect my wife to get excommunicated someday for her role in her little clinic if the money triumvirate of government/insurance/hospitals don’t put her out of business first. </p>

<p>The records I’m working off of from the 1900s-1940s concern sterilization records and many of the requests come FROM religious clergy for sterilization of their charges. (This was at a time when it was mostly illegal to elect your own sterilization but your friends/family/religious clergy/hospital directors could do it for you if it was in the “best interest” of you and/or society).</p>

<p>Also, I did not misspeak. I want nationalized hospitals (I’ll settle for national health insurance but I want religion away from hospitals). I’m sick of churches running hospitals according to their whims and disenfranchising women. I’m over it. If they want to run charity hospitals, be my guest, but when some insurance plans only allow you to go to these hospitals that can arbitrarily decide to not serve women’s total health, I draw the line.
I’ve also lived in some of those “nationalized” hospital countries and I much preferred the system. YMMV. </p>

<p>Religious hospitals should not have a monopoly on business if they are refusing ordinary services to anyone.</p>

<p>I don’t have a problem with religions operating their own hospitals, but my Medicare tax dollars should not be going to health care providers who are not offering health care. I don’t want to subsidize religious providers that don’t do blood transfusions because it’s against their religion, or religious providers that don’t vaccinate because it’s against their religion, or providers that don’t prescribe birth control because it’s against their religion. They can do what they want, but my tax dollars should go to health care providers that offer the full range of health care, not some religious subset.</p>

<p>It’s my understanding that most of the hospitals in our state are religious. They were pressing for an exception to a bill so that ‘religious hospitals’ didn’t have to offer patients (including rape victims arriving by ambulance) the full range of appropriate medical treatment, including the option to be sure there was no conception from rape.</p>

<p>Well, this is an interesting conundrum. Good grief.</p>

<p>I agree with cf, I don’t want my tax dollars going to support that lack of service either.</p>

<p>By the way, just to clear things up because a lot of people get confused about this, and I have been confused myself:</p>

<p>Plan B, emergency birth control, does not cause abortion. It prevents ovulation. But, you may ask, what if the rape victim had already ovulated this month, shortly before she was raped, and then she takes emergency contraception? Well then, she gets pregnant, because emergency contraception does not cause abortion.</p>

<p>Emergency birth control is not the same as the abortion pill, which does cause abortion, but which is only given weeks after the woman gets pregnant.</p>

<p>This is your public service message of the day.</p>

<p>Birth control is a health issue, if it weren’t then birth control pills would be sold otc without a prescription. More importantly, unintended pregnancy is a public health issue, for a lot of reasons.</p>

<p>There are a lot of issues here. First of all, Catholic hospitals are not a purely religious institutions, which right away makes the whole ‘freedom of religion’ argument dubious. Said hospitals employ non Catholics, they serve non Catholics, and of course take government money in performing their services. This is not a church, where such arguments do apply, an employee of a church, which is a purely religious body, has such an exemption. Put it this way, most Catholic hospital are non profits that have boards that have non church members, and their funding primarily comes from the government, private health insurance and money raised for the hospital through fundraising and grants, very little if any of the funding comes from the church itself. If the Hospital were totally run by the church, paid for by the church, and was run entirely by church members (something like a soup kitchen at a church), the religious freedom argument would apply, but at a church affiliated program where much of their activity is non religious based, where most funding is not from the church, it doesn’t apply. </p>

<p>Hospitals like insurance companies are also regulated by the government, and as such there are places where they are required to cover certain things, certain procedures, whether it is religious belief or not. If Christian Scientists took over a hospital and insisted that treatment consists only of things going with their beliefs, they would be in a lot of trouble, especially if they accepted outside funding.</p>

<p>It is also very easy to say things like “well, don’t like the religious hospital, go to another one”. If you live in Northern NJ or NYC that isn’t an issue,. but in many places there just aren’t many hospitals. More importantly, most people these days have insurance that specifies that other than for emergencies, to get full coverage you have to go to a hospital in their network. So what if the only hospital realistically in your area has these religious objections, but that is where your insurance wants you to go? </p>

<p>One of the key rulings on religious belief is that religious belief can be taken into account, but that if it puts undo burdens on others, it has to take a back seat. There are pharmacists who refused to dispense birth control or morning after pills, for example, and the ruling there was as long as there was another pharmacist willing to dispense them, it was okay for the person to refuse; likewise, a worker who let’s say is of a faith that considers dogs unclean, could get an exemption from working with them as long as someone else who was there could do it. A town clerk could say they won’t marry same sex couples, as long as there is another clerk who will, but if they are the only one on duty or available, no. </p>

<p>@cardinal-
Plan B is not an abortion ill, but it is likewise forbidden by Catholic teaching because it artificially interferes with the procreation process…condoms are not causing abortion, but they are forbidden, too. </p>

<p>I understand that Catholics are opposed to birth control as well as abortion (I was raised Catholic!) but other religious groups oppose abortion and support contraception. People in those other groups should be clear about which medications cause abortion and which do not.</p>

<p>I wonder if lack of sexual relations is considered to be unacceptable. It interferes with procreation and conception process completely. Doesn’t give those little swimmers even a fighting chance.</p>

<p>“How Does Plan B Work?
Plan B One-Step works through delaying or preventing ovulation, by interfering with fertilization (inhibiting the movement of the egg or the sperm through the fallopian tube). The FDA package insert also states that Plan B One-Step may inhibit implementation by altering the lining of the uterus. It is not effective if the process of implantation has begun. Plan B One-Step will NOT cause a miscarriage. Plan B One-Step does not provide any protection or treatment against sexually transmitted diseases. Pregnancies occurring despite treatment do not have an increased risk of adverse outcome.”</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/plan_b_contraception.html”>http://www.mckinley.illinois.edu/handouts/plan_b_contraception.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Cardinalfangs’s statement five comments above is not quite correct. Emergency contraception does not cause a miscarriage of an already established pregnancy, but will inhibit fertilization or implantation.</p>

<p>It was interesting to me that all of the lobbyists and people who were testifying in support of the exemption were old men while the people who were testifying to support the rights of potential rape victims were all ages and genders. It was very striking during the hearing. It took our state about a dozen years to pass the bill, largely because of the people who wanted the exception to swallow the rule.</p>

<p>@cardinal-
I hear you, I was talking more from a Catholic perspective, since a lot of the hospitals with these issues are Catholic affiliated, or at least where I live they are. </p>

<p>@himom-
That shouldn’t be surprising, the most conservative voices tend to be older men, especially white men, it is the prime demographic among religious conservatives. Naral had an ad out there once, whose headline was “98% of pro life groups are headed by men, and 100% of them don’t have to worry about getting pregnant”. </p>

<p>I think what is an interesting question is why suddenly did this become such a big issue? As someone else pointed out, a lot of plans routinely cover birth control, and for example, courts have ruled that if plans cover viagra they have to cover birth control, and others have ordered that it is a necessary part of health care coverage, so why now? Sure, it was ruled on by the health care law, but what it really looks like to me is the head of Hobby Lobby, and the leaders of the RC, are suddenly blowing this out of proportion to grasp at an issue they can try and make hay out of. They have lost with same sex marriage, and it doesn’t take a giant leap (or great cynicism) that the Bishops made a big deal about contraception coverage just before the last election cycle, and now that the opponents of the health care act are trying to use it as a wedge issue, we have the Hobby Lobby lawsuit. This whole “religious freedom” movement seems to be trying to use the freedom of religion clause to force others to abide by their beliefs, rather than about their own personal freedom of belief. </p>

<p>Had not heard or read much about the Hobby Lobby, but not sure I want to go down that rabbit hole, as I think this is an important thread to keep open. Am always sad when medical options are reduced and give people fewer choices, even if some of them are funded by my medical premiums and some may be procedures or needs that I will not have or take advantage of, like prostate meds or other things for men.</p>

<p>Birth control is an important medical issue that has huge implications, whether the control is via medication, IUD, injection, or other means. It amazes me that this discussion continues to need to be held in order to allow people to make choices in controlling their own bodies and how much docs can have dictated about what they can discuss and have covered in treating their patients. I thought our society had made progress–it seems a few steps forward and many backwards or sideways. <sigh></sigh></p>

<p>Hobby Lobby comes down to one basic question. What does the Constitution protect- religious freedom or having ones employer pay for birth control?</p>

<p>good gosh. is that the only hospital in town?<br>
And can a hospital actually dictate what a doctor does in his own practice, his own office offsite?
If I were a doctor there, I’d either move or take my practice to another hospital.
Let Catholics go to these Catholic hospitals, fine with me. (and I’m on the lapsed bench myself). It would seem that non-Catholic folks in Bartlesville aren’t welcome at that hospital. </p>