Insurers must cover birth control with no copays

WASHINGTON (AP) — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women’s preventive care under President Barack Obama’s health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual “well-woman” physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

That’s awesome. I’m glad women will have all of these services available to them. :thumbsup:

And this should make Catholics happy:

The Obama administration released an amendment to the prevention regulation that allows religious institutions offering health insurance to their employees the choice of whether or not to cover contraception services.

And maybe those who are not happy about that amendment can buy a rider to their policy…or work in a secular institution.

I think its great news and its about time.

But a Catholic employer like myself is still required to provide this coverage in their company insurance, correct? so I am left with the option of either funding immorality for my employees or dropping their insurance. . I will probably do the latter

Without benefit of act of congress the US has a new “law” on the books as decreed by our president. I used to think I lived in a republic.

Then do the latter. It’s your choice, afterall, to do so. :shrug:

That’s part of being an employer in a pluralistic society. Potential employees have been educated at government expense, right?

Sometimes one must accept the whole package.

Obamacare just excluded my employees from having insurance coverage-and for no other reason than for him to pandery to his base… its sad-it is even more sad to see how many Catholics support it.

And no Beua potential employyes have not been educated at govt expense. If they attended public schools they were educated at taxpayer expense.

It seems that paying for long term contraception - IUD, vasectomy, tubal ligation - would save the insurance companies money in the long run. In many cases it would even make sense for the gubment to pay people to undergo sterilization rather than paying for their children to be fed, sheltered, educated and then sooner or later imprisoned.

Nooo, Obamacare is not excluding your employees – you are excluding your employees from having insurance coverage because you don’t like the new benefit and aren’t confident that they won’t use the birth control benefit available. And it’s okay, it your choice. But it’s not like the government is taking away your employees’ health insurance… The government is actually providing them with a wider range of benefits at a lower cost.

I’m sure there are many things about insurance policies that various people don’t like. Just like with everything else, you can choose to compromise or you can choose not to compromise.

Paying for any kind of contraception theoretically will save them from paying out money in the long run. Especially the government, who pays for prenatal care, delivery and IIRC one follow up visit for mom, and then insures the child until they are 18, and gives them WIC, free school lunches, food stamp debit cards, etc. It’s cheaper to pay for contraception (even ABCs) than the cost of someone getting pregnant unintentionally. How can it NOT be less expensive to just hand out contraceptives or pay for sterilizations?

When I had a pre-cancer scare a few years ago, I was not eligible for medicaid…because taadaaa, I wasn’t pregnant…though I didn’t have a job at the time as I was caring for my incapacited post-stroke mother. I was told that if I would have gone through the emergency room and was admitted, medicaid would have picked up the tab. But because it wasn’t an “emergency”, I couldn’t get any help. It kinda hurt to see all those women in the waiting room who were all eligibile as unwed and/or underpriviedged mothers, while I was hung out to try for the sole fact that I was leading a chaste single life. The hospital was Catholic and would have helped me out…except that had told them earlier in the visit before I knew their policies, that I was moving out of state the next month – which would disqualify me from getting any aid from them. Though I was born at that hospital, and lived in that county all my life (35 years), and even worked several years in that hospital, they told me it was unlikely that I would get covered because I was moving.

But, Thank God, the cyst turned out to be not only noncancerous, but hormonally driven, and it shrunk and went away within two cycles. What would have happened to me if it wasn’t?

Nope, I couldn’t care less about birth control pills and sterilizations being offered along with everything else. Everything else will make a difference in many women’s lives. It’s their choice to either get birth control or not. The way I see it, since there is a high percentage of women on ABCs right now today, this new policy isn’t going to make a difference aside from making accessibility to heathcare to women more of a reality.

Up until now it was possible for a Catholic employer to provide their employees insurance and not run afoul of the teachings of the church. that is no longer possible. You may find this acceptable, I do not

There are many things people may or may not find acceptable with policies. You can either participate or not. It’s still your choice…

Not everyone relies on those services from the government - most don’t even qualify.

Limiting the number of children only ensures our social system will fail. Why do you think European countries are now rewarding families for having more children?

And the employees of catholics who adhere to the Faith pay the price for obamas political pandering. It should be not be any of the govts business what coverage my employees have.

It is the government’s business. How is it not the government’s business when they finance unintended (and some intended) pregnancies and children up till the age of 18? It sure is their business.

Maybe they should stop.

It wasn’t until the government paid women for these “unintended pregnancies” that they became so common.

Does the term “welfare queen” mean anything to you?

I agree. They should stop. But then what happens to the children? Is there a moral solution to that problem?

I haven’t heard of that term before. I can’t answer that until you clarify it.

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