Trump admin rescinds Obamacare hhs contraceptive mandate

[StLucieBengal]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/06/trump-administration-rescinds-obamacares-hhs-contraceptive-mandate/

Good start. Just keep breaking this thing up piece by piece if they won't repeal. Another campaign promise kept.

Quote:Trump Administration Rescinds Obamacare’s HHS Contraceptive Mandate

Dr. Susan Berry6 Oct 2017
U.S. President Donald Trump listens during his joint press conference with President Sauli Niinistö of the Republic of Finland, in the East Room of the White House, on Monday, August 28, 2017. (Photo by Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images
513

President Donald Trump has followed through with his promise to Americans who object to the Obamacare contraceptive mandate for religious or moral reasons by officially ending the Obama-era rule.

As expected, the Trump administration announced the end of the controversial mandate that has required employers to provide free contraception, sterilization procedures, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees through health insurance plans.

Community Associations Institute


In early May, Trump signed an executive order protecting free speech and religious liberty for American faith groups. Part of the order directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reexamine the contraceptive mandate.

A senior official with the administration said on background in a press briefing Thursday evening the new rule provides full protection for Americans with religious beliefs and moral convictions and acknowledges that the contraceptive mandate concerns serious issues of moral concern, including those involving human life.

According to the official, the rule will nevertheless leave free contraception in place for the vast majority of women since the new rule only covers moral and religious objections.

The mandate was inserted into Obamacare by former HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius – an abortion activist – and bureaucrats in her department. Following objections by many religious employers to the requirements of the mandate, the Obama administration devised “accommodations” that only gave the appearance the religious groups would not be either footing the bill for, or passively approving of, the federal government’s mandate of the offensive contraceptive drugs and sterilization procedures.

Planned Parenthood – which benefits financially from wider distribution of contraceptives – NARAL, and other feminist groups have attempted to portray Trump and other Republicans as intent on taking away women’s birth control by reversing the mandate. The Obama administration itself, however, actually exempted at least 25 million Americans, through various exemption allowances, from its own rule.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty – which represented the Little Sisters of the Poor in its case against the HHS mandate, noted the Obama administration had exempted large corporations such as Chevron, Exxon, Visa, and Pepsi Bottling from the rule, as well as the U.S. military and large cities like New York City.

The Little Sisters – which provides care for the elderly poor – became a central focus of the HHS mandate when the religious order stood to receive onerous fines of up to $70 million at the hands of the federal government for not complying with the Obamacare requirement to provide drugs and procedures that violate their faith principles.

Becket Law said a new rule by the Trump administration would fulfill the Supreme Court’s ruling in Zubik vs. Burwell last year as well as President Donald Trump’s promise to Americans of faith and moral convictions.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Zubik to send back the case of the Little Sisters and other faith organizations to the lower courts in effect protected groups such as the Little Sisters from the contraceptive mandate’s onerous fines. The new Trump administration rule will now protect a larger group of employers from the mandate, and not just the “closely held” private companies – such as Hobby Lobby – which the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled could be exempt due to religious objections.

According to senior administration officials, the new rule expands exemptions to include other nonprofit organizations and for-profit groups – both closely-held and some that are publicly traded if they have religious objections, as well as other kinds of employers with religious objections.

Colleges and universities with religious objections that provide health insurance for students may also be exempt from the contraceptive mandate according to the new rule.

The mandate’s end also means that individuals with religious or moral objections may receive an exemption if their employer or the insurance company that issues their health insurance is willing to provide them with a plan consistent with their beliefs.

Insurance companies themselves may be exempt under the new rule, according to senior HHS officials, though only to the extent that they offer a plan to groups or individuals who themselves have an exemption based on religious or moral objections.

During his presidential campaign, Trump had promised faith leaders and employers relief from the Obamacare mandate.

In a letter to the Catholic Leadership Conference in October of 2016, Trump told Catholic leaders just prior to his election that Hillary Clinton’s support for the HHS mandate “is a hostility to religious liberty you will never see in a Trump Administration.”

Trump wrote:

On life, I am, and will remain, pro-life. I will defend your religious liberties and the right to fully and freely practice your religion, as individuals, business owners and academic institutions. I will make absolutely certain religious orders like The Little Sisters of Poor are not bullied by the federal government because of their religious beliefs.

The president invited the Little Sisters on stage with him at his first National Day of Prayer event at the White House in May and said to them, “I want you to know that your long ordeal will soon be over.”

“We will not allow people of faith to be targeted, bullied, or silenced anymore,” the president said. “We will never ever stand for religious discrimination.

“No American should be forced to choose between the dictates of the federal government and the tenets of their faith,” Trump added.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2017, 01:37 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/06/trump-administration-rescinds-obamacares-hhs-contraceptive-mandate/

Good start.  Just keep breaking this thing up piece by piece if they won't repeal.   Another campaign promise kept.

I wonder how many abortions he's paid for? But hey, private versus public money. Amiright?

Anyway...as long as viagra is still covered so old men like the POTUS can keep up with their younger wives I guess it's okay.

[*Nately120*]

My only concern is saying that we wont stand for religious discrimination is going to make Muslims think they have the right to run wild.

[Au165]

They should then add a mandate that anyone who doesn't pay for contraception must cover child care.

[GMDino]

(10-06-2017, 02:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: They should then add a mandate that anyone who doesn't pay for contraception must cover child care.

You misunderstand.  "Pro life" means the child must be born.  After that it's up to the loser woman that had it to provide without any assistance.  And if the child is fortunate enough to reach 18 old Uncle Sam will gladly welcome them into the meat grinder for the next really important country we are defending/invading.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 02:02 PM)Au165 Wrote: They should then add a mandate that anyone who doesn't pay for contraception must cover child care.

I would assume the vast majority of insurance already covers dependent children. Deductables and premiums may rise.

[Au165]

(10-06-2017, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would assume the vast majority of insurance already covers dependent children. Deductables and premiums may rise.

No you misunderstand, I mean the child care as in day care so that the adults can work to actually provide for themselves and the kid they had. Otherwise what happens is the cost of child care outweighs the income being brought in and it makes it more advantageous to go on government assistance and watch your own kid.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 02:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: No you misunderstand, I mean the child care as in day care so that the adults can work to actually provide for themselves and the kid they had. Otherwise what happens is the cost of child care outweighs the income being brought in and it makes it more advantageous to go on government assistance and watch your own kid.

Oh, that sounds more like a personal responsibility and not that of the employer.

[Benton]

Not a shock.

Unfortunately, using legislation to press religious beliefs on others is only going to further push people away from religion.

[Au165]

(10-06-2017, 02:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, that sounds more like a personal responsibility and not that of the employer.

That becomes a country responsibility when they are funneled into the assistance programs. Why is it those same health care plans still cover Viagra? Shouldn't they only cover Viagra to people who are married based on their religious beliefs?

Next question, what about the fact that birth control is also a medication that is used to treat heavy menstrual flow? Do we need to ban any drugs being covered that lower sperm count in men as a side effect? That could also be interpreted as a form of birth control.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 02:34 PM)Au165 Wrote: 1) That becomes a country responsibility when they are funneled into the assistance programs. Why is it those same health care plans still cover Viagra? Shouldn't they only cover Viagra to people who are married based on their religious beliefs?

2) Next question, what about the fact that birth control is also a medication that is used to treat heavy menstrual flow? Do we need to ban any drugs being covered that lower sperm count in men as a side effect? That could also be interpreted as a form of birth control.

1). I suppose it is because ED is a medical condition (or so I've been told). By your standards if a pregnancy occurs as a result of the male taking Viagra then the employer should pay for child care.

2) If heavy menstrual flow is a condition that requires treatment and oral contraceptive is the only method of treatment then it should be authorized and I would be mad with you if it were not.

Once again you are pointing to a drain on society "funneled into the assistance programs". That is not an employers responsibility.

[Au165]

(10-06-2017, 02:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1). I suppose it is because ED is a medical condition (or so I've been told). By your standards if a pregnancy occurs as a result of the male taking Viagra then the employer should pay for child care.

2) If heavy menstrual flow is a condition that requires treatment and oral contraceptive is the only method of treatment then it should be authorized and I would be mad with you if it were not.

Once again you are pointing to a drain on society "funneled into the assistance programs". That is not an employers responsibility.

So as to 1, ED is only a medical condition effecting ones ability to have sex. If you are not married, by many religious beliefs, you should not be having sex. So again Viagra should not be covered unless they are married if that is an owners religious belief correct?


Interesting response to 2, so you don't care that the outcome is the same being that a woman in incapable of having a child? The religious freedoms of the employer now stop there?



As to your last point, the law made employee healthcare including birth control the responsibility of the employer. Them skirting that responsibility moves it back to society.

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 02:57 PM)Au165 Wrote: 1) So as to 1, ED is only a medical condition effecting ones ability to have sex. If you are not married, by many religious beliefs, you should not be having sex. So again Viagra should not be covered unless they are married if that is an owners religious belief correct?


2) Interesting response to 2, so you don't care that the outcome is the same being that a woman in incapable of having a child? The religious freedoms of the employer now stop there?



3) As to your last point, the law made employee healthcare including birth control the responsibility of the employer. Them skirting that responsibility moves it back to society.

1- Yes, Viagra should only be covered by health insurance companies if they are married.

2- Perhaps interesting but not inconsistent. I've always placed the health of the mother above an unborn child; I just don't place her convenience above it.

3- No it doesn't it places the responsibility back on the individual. Nobody but that individual is responsible for them having Children they cannot afford and damn sure not the employer.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2017, 02:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I would assume the vast majority of insurance already covers dependent children. Deductables and premiums may rise.

Which do you think is cheaper? Birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies or health care for dependent children as a result of an unwanted pregnancies up to the age of 26? By not covering the birth control employers are most likely increasing their costs to the insurance companies or the cost to tax payers if they receive something like Medicaid.

[GMDino]

Wasn't there an option already for those with religious reservations to simply sign off and opt out of that part?

Why did it have to be rescinded completely?

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 03:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Which do you think is cheaper?  Birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies or health care for dependent children as a result of an unwanted pregnancies up to the age of 26?  By not covering the birth control employers are most likely increasing their costs to the insurance companies or the cost to tax payers if they receive something like Medicaid.

Cheaper for whom?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(10-06-2017, 03:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Cheaper for whom?

Haven't you been talking about the cost to the employer providing the health insurance?

But, I believe the cost of contraception vs the cost of 26 years of health care would be cheaper for the parent, the employer providing the insurance, and the insurance company.

Do you agree or disagree?

[*bfine32*]

(10-06-2017, 04:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Haven't you been talking about the cost to the employer providing the health insurance?

But, I believe the cost of contraception vs the cost of 26 years of health care would be cheaper for the parent, the employer providing the insurance, and the insurance company.

Do you agree or disagree?

I have not been talking about that, but to answer your question:

I'm almost certain it would cost the insurance company and employer more; however, I assume these costs are offset by increase deductibles/premiums.

The real cost is to the employee and it is no one's job to protect an employee from him or herself during their time away from work.

[StLucieBengal]

(10-06-2017, 02:19 PM)Au165 Wrote: No you misunderstand, I mean the child care as in day care so that the adults can work to actually provide for themselves and the kid they had. Otherwise what happens is the cost of child care outweighs the income being brought in and it makes it more advantageous to go on government assistance and watch your own kid.

Here is the solution.

1. Get married
2. Someone stays home and takes care of the children while the other works. Asking grandparents, aunts/uncles, siblings to help when need d.
3. Have more children

[*michaelsean*]

(10-06-2017, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote: I wonder how many abortions he's paid for? But hey, private versus public money. Amiright?

Anyway...as long as viagra is still covered so old men like the POTUS can keep up with their younger wives I guess it's okay.

The Viagra argument has always been stupid. Viagra helps fix something that isn’t working. Birth control stops something from working properly. I think it’s wise to include birth control in insurance policies for those of child bearing years but that argument is stupid.

A question. I didn’t read much of the article because I’m on my phone and I’m not reading all of that, but isn’t the mandate in the law? How is that reversed with an EO?