State Rep. Paul Joseph Wieland and his wife Teresa are suing the Obama administration over its minimum coverage requirements for health plans under the Affordable Care Act, which includes contraception. They say the government is forcing them to violate their religious beliefs because they have three daughters, ages 13, 18 and 19, who are on their parents’ plan and might get birth control at no additional cost.
The title of the article is strongly editorializing. I hastened to see who wrote it and was surprised to see it was from Time.com. The magazine sometimes has reporting which is not neutral, but this headline was way out into the activism lane.
I am surprised that Time.com is struggling so badly they need to copy blog posts. However, if they decide to make a habit of this, they may want to use their own headlines rather than the one used by the original blog. The AP allows news outlets to write their own headlines. Perhaps Time doing the same with its other content providers wouldn’t be too objectionable.
Is he worried that his tax dollars are funding birth control in general, or that his daughters might get it? If it’s the former, he has little ground to stand on. Lot’s of people don’t want to fund lot’s of things. If’ it’s the latter, whether or not his daughters procure birth control is a matter for him and his wife to deal with as parents.
It’s not that his tax dollars are going toward contraceptives, it’s that unless one works directly for one of the “exempt” employers, one is forced to buy women’s contraceptive coverage.
Even in my situation, this is the case - I’m a single male with no children, yet under the ACA and working for a non-religious employer, I have no option other than to pay for coverage that includes women’s contraceptives.
Interestingly, this selective coverage might be a window to declaring the mandate unconstitutional in its entirety. Medical contraception - up to and including surgical sterilization - is only mandated to be covered for women. Any such procedures for men are not required to be covered. Could this be considered an unequal application of the law under the 14th amendment?
I’m curious about this. Missouri has a contraception mandate but previously you could opt out based on morals. Since Obamacare came along, they removed the opt out option because federal law trumps state law.
Under the previous law, if he opted out (which I’m assuming he did), was his premium cheaper or the same? If they were the same, he is still paying for them but just isn’t able to get coverage for them. I guess if his primary concern is to keep his daughters from taking birth control this set up is fine. Othewise he would have been paying for them all along.
Anybody know more about how it works in Missouri and how it worked when you were able to opt out? This is from a few minutes googling so if I got anything wrong it was my own misunderstanding.
Heck, I would guess that healthcare would cost more if you don’t want birth control funded; after all, the cost of pre-natal care, delivery and care for mother and baby post-birth is very expensive; much more than the cost of birth control pills.