In lawsuit, Connecticut man seeks health insurance without fee for coverage of abortions


#1

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — His family plan through BlueCross BlueShield costs $494 a month, and Barth Bracy says that if he could, he would keep it.

But with the company saying it will cancel the plan this fall, and the plans he can afford not to his liking, Bracy says he has no choice but to plead his case in court.

In what may be the first lawsuit of its kind in the nation, Bracy — executive director of the Rhode Island Right to Life Committee and a resident of Dayville, Conn. — is suing the federal and state officials who administer the Affordable Care Act in his home state, alleging violations of his constitutional rights, as well as federal and state laws protecting the freedom of religion.

providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140705-in-lawsuit-connecticut-man-seeks-health-insurance-without-fee-for-coverage-of-abortions.ece


#2

Here is what I think is the greatest violation of people’s constitutional rights: Any health care system that is too expensive for them to afford. We had a system that prevented people from getting any coverage at all. Now we have a chance for all people to get health insurance, with or without assistance, and without having to worry about previously existing conditions. That in itself is an improvement.

As for the coverage of abortion and/or birth control: regardless of our personal convictions it is not up to us to decide that for others. I am not for abortion and I accept the teaching of the Church on birth control, but I am not going to shove it down people’s throat. This is not and should never be a country under a Theocracy.

God does give us free will. Maybe it is about time we let people practice that and stay out of the political arena on this one. If you don’t want someone having an abortion put them up in your home, adopt their child or mind your business. And if you don’t believe in birth control don’t use it. And if anyone thinks the majority of Catholics are only using NFP think again. If that was the only form of “birth control” they were using the average size of Catholic families would be closer to 6 children each or more. Let’s get real people. There are way too many Catholic homes with 1.5 kids versus 4, 5 ,6 or more.


#3

He’s not trying to “decide anything for others”. The ACA was supposed to provide at least one plan in each exchange that did not include abortion coverage. But the government has failed to deliver on that requirement of the law. Hence a lawsuit to try to force the government to do what it is already required by law to do.


#4

What about all the people that are now paying or will have to pay more for a health care plan because their plan has been cancelled? Improvements in the American health care system can and/or could have been made without the Affordable Care Act.


#5

I came here because I thought the headline was even more bizarre than it was. I read it as:

“In lawsuit, Connecticut man seeks
health insurance, without fee,
for coverage of abortions” :blush:

I hate Headlinese. :rolleyes:


#6

That should go both ways. Abortion/birth control coverage should not be forced down our throats either. We should not have to pay for something that we find repulsive.


#7

You’re not alone. I read it that way too at first. :blush:


#8

Conn. family won’t be forced to pay Obamacare elective abortion surcharge

adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9153


#9

Now can I buy my insurance without having to pay for obgyn care and pediatric care, neither of which I will ever use because I am a single man? I think that is a cogent question given that my monthly premium has risen 61% from December 1, 2012 to January 1, 2015.


#10

Not sure how your tangent about NFP is relevant.

I could also suggest that you could take your own advice about abortion and take those without healthcare into your home, or agree to pay for their medical expenses. But that would probably sound preachy and sanctimonious…

Regardless, you can’t do good by doing evil. The two goals in question are not mutually exclusive. You can find ways to provide healthcare for people without forcing others to lose it (do you even care about those who have lost it or who can now no longer afford it???) without funding abortion coverage.


#11

In a free market, you should be able to buy a plan that meets your needs. But insurance isn’t a free market product and that’s not what this case was about. The ACA was “sold” with a provision that plans would be available that did not include abortion. It is a moral issue, not a matter of usage. If you are morally opposed to ob/gyn and pediatric health care, but not opposed to health care for single men, you have some issues but they aren’t even remotely related to faith. :rolleyes:


#12

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.