" is unconstitutional can an insurance company offer a plan with BC coverage…"
That should read “without” BC coverage, not with.
Its hard to tell from the materials I’ve read, but he may simply be asking for the check box back, that lets him and others with religious objections, opt out of having his $ go towards others’ contraception. He apparently did not object to his plan offering contraception in the past; he participated with the check box, so it doesn’t sound like he is trying to take contraception away from anyone (other than maybe his daughters, but that is also unclear. Maybe he just doesn’t want to pay for theirs either).
I don’t want to keep arguing this. How is the politician paying for others contraception when he isn’t paying for contraception? The politician is not paying for contraception. The cost of his plan would be higher if contraception was not covered. So how is he paying for contraception? 
The case should be thrown out if that is what he is arguing.
My memory is that in the Hobby Lobby and Catholic Church cases, the issue was solved by having the insurance companies pay for the contraception. This implies to me that this is not the normal set up; rather policyholder premiums usually pay for contraception.
Catholics are also officially opposed to any form of sterilization. Should he have a box to check to insure that his wife doesn’t get her tubes tied? Or so that he can’t get a vasectomy?
ETA - I should say that that must be coming next except that these religious objections are never about vasectomies and tubal ligations are they? Funny that they’re so often about BC pills which were invented by a Catholic doctor who fully expected that they would be accepted by the Catholic powers that be.
Yes I think he objected to paying for sterilizations as well.
Then the guy has no case…
I am going to be fair.
The politician gets a conservative judge…maybe he can win. Then it will be appealed. This case can drag on for awhile.
I see that, thumper. Sorry about that.
I don’t care if my insurance offers BC or whatever, so I’m just making that clear.
The Catholic Church doesn’t care what some lay Catholics or others think of her teachings. She’s not going to change her teachings based on a popularity contest.
IVF will never be accepted by the Church because human reproduction is supposed to happen as the result of sexual intercourse. There are reasons for this which are too complicated to detail here, but has to do with the sacramental nature of marriage…and that sacrament is renewed during sexual intercourse. The Church does not believe that simply saying vows marries a couple; they must have sexual intercourse as part of the sacrament of marriage.
Another reason IVF will never be acceptable is because of the other part of the process: discarding of fertilized eggs for various reasons.
But…carry on. The Church is 2000 years old and won’t be moved by whatever is posted on CC or elsewhere.
8-|
We will not let this turn into a theological debate, Catholic bashing, or anything similar. If that starts to happen this will close quickly. Someone mentioned it was getting repetitive anyway. but I would rather leave it open in case there are short term developments in the case.
@Bay said
The problem is that you are ignoring the Hobby Lobby ruling, which states a corporation whose shareholders object to birth control need not include it in their employer-sponsored health plans. I can think of no legal rationale whereby this would not also apply to individuals.
I’ve heard many complaints about the notion that corporations have “rights.” But I have never heard an argument legitimately made that corporations should have greater First Amendment rights than individuals.
I can think of no reason why a for-profit corporation should be considered a “person” with “beliefs.” The owners, sure. The corporation, no. Corporations are an artificial construct, created by man for the purpose of limiting taxes, liability, and losses which would otherwise accrue to actual persons.
I agree with you. I did touch upon Hobby Lobby, by saying that I believe what the federal government did as a result was to require Hobby Lobby’s insurance company to provide and pay for contraception to its employees at no cost. It seems to me there should be a similar remedy for individuals who do not want their premium payments going towards contraception, and that is where the insurance companies will push back on the administrative paperwork it will require.
“which states a corporation whose shareholders object to birth control need not include it in their employer-sponsored health plans.”
That should read a privately held corporation.
Corporations of more than X people (I think it’s 50) are required to offer health insurance for their employees. They cannot opt out and just pay a penalty, unlike an individual.
If the plaintiff in this case wants he can drop his employer sponsored health plan and get a small business health insurance plan for his insurance company and he won’t have to offer BC coverage in the plan. This will be much more expensive then the plan he has now, but I’m sure he wouldn’t mind paying a lot more to not have BC coverage in his plan.
Or he can opt out of his plan he is on now and pay the penalty.
Religious objection is a red herring. What’s next, Hindus who refuse to pay property taxes if the local public schools serve hamburgers for lunch?
eb-
He owns his own Insurance brokerage. Its HIS company, co owned with is wife. No clue how many employees they have, but if they have agents, they are probably commission based. That said, this article claims he gets his insurance coverage from the state as a State Representative
If its provided by the State, is he paying for the insurance or is it a benefit at no cost to the legislators? Anyone know?
Read the last 2 paragraph of this article and try to say with a straight face that this isn’t political http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/missouri-lawmaker-suing-deny-daughters-birth-control-access 9quote]Since Wieland is a public employee, the family gets its coverage from the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, which they say let them opt out of such coverage before the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, Missouri’s U.S. Senator Roy Blunt sponsored an amendment that would have allowed any employer to opt out of any kind of coverage, which failed in the Senate.
Wieland, who is running for state senate this year, has a 100% rating from Missouri Right to Life. Also this week, the Missouri state legislature is meeting for what is expected to be a close vote to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a law that would require abortion patients to wait 72 hours before their procedure.
[/quote]
The paragraph above says they cannot terminate insurance coverage for their children due to religious beliefs :
So they want to provide for the health and well being of their daughters, except in one large area…
So who violated HIPAA and told him that his daughters who are over 18 were getting birth control? Or is he wringing his hands that they might get birth control?
Did they give him permission to see their medical records?
Noting that, my son and I just benefited from a HIPAA violation. What a surprise that a foreign call center employee didn’t know HIPAA that well.
There is a simple answer to this case. He should refuse employer health insurance and buy his own. Period. End of sentence. His company (the State, as it were, in this case) provides health insurance. They are not forcing his daughters to buy birth control let alone use it. He should take his hard-earned money and buy private health insurance with no birth control coverage.
Heck, there’s probably a big market out there for health insurance without birth control, I’m sure some company offers it. I work for a different state, and I can opt out of my company’s health insurance. It’s like I don’t use their smoking cessation plan, but I am paying for other people to quit smoking, even if I think it’s their own problem.
Here is their complaint/appeal if anyone wants to wade through it http://www.becketfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/2015.07.20-Wieland-Opinion1.pdf