Developing: Pakistani Plane Escorted by UK Fighter Jets — 2 Men Arrested

Listen to the Buck Sexton Show Live on TheBlaze Radio

Faith

Obama’s New Contraceptive Plan: Religiously-Affiliated Groups Can Opt-Out of Birth Control Mandate, But…

Feb. 1, 2013 11:37am Billy Hallowell

The Obama administration has unveiled new rules governing the controversial contraceptive mandate, a provision that led to numerous, ongoing legal battles between faith groups and the federal government. In an updated regulatory change that was announced today by the Department of Health and Human Services, religiously-affiliated organizations will be able to opt out of providing birth control coverage. However, businesses like Hobby Lobby will still be forced to comply.

“Religiously affiliated organizations will be given the option of exempting themselves from the requirement of providing their employees with contraceptive access or service that they are morally opposed to,” a source told CNN before the changes were made public.

The focus upon churches and affiliated organizations is evident, but there is no mention of the debate that continues to surround religious companies that are owned by individuals with faith-based objections to providing contraceptives. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released today simplifies the definition of a “religious employer.” The new rules read:

The simple definition of “religious employer” for purposes of the exemption would follow a section of the Internal Revenue Code, and would primarily include churches, other houses of worship, and their affiliated organizations, as defined by Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii)

This proposed change is intended to clarify that a house of worship would not be excluded from the exemption because, for example, it provides charitable social services to persons of different religious faiths or employs persons of different religious faiths. The Departments believe that this proposal would not expand the universe of employer plans that would qualify for the exemption beyond that which was intended in the 2012 final rules.

The administration also provides details surrounding how such an opt-out process would work. If an organization decides not to offer birth control, one proposal would be for individual employees to receive contraceptives through what CNN describes as a “third entity.” This exchange would be paid for by the insurance company. Here’s how the new rules explain the process:

Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.

In addition, under the proposed accommodations, plan participants would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums. The issuer would work to ensure a seamless process for plan participants to receive contraceptive coverage.

A second proposal would involve larger-scale organizations that pay for their own health care (the Catholic diocese is an example). While these groups will not be forced to directly provide birth control, it will be offered up through a separate plan. The rules continue:

With respect to insured group health plans, the eligible organization would provide the self-certification to the health insurance issuer, which in turn would automatically provide separate, individual market contraceptive coverage at no cost for plan participants. Issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost neutral because they would be they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies and would experience lower costs from improvements in women’s health and fewer childbirths.

With respect to self-insured group health plans, the eligible organization would notify the third party administrator, which in turn would automatically work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants. The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay.

While the rules do, indeed, clarify some uncertainty and open up the opportunity for faith-based groups to avoid the mandate, as stated, business compliance is not addressed. While it’s still to early to tell how faith groups will respond to the new rules, Hobby Lobby and dozens of other businesses who are suing the government in an effort to be exempt from the mandate will likely be forced to continue their legal battles.

“Still unresolved is the issue of private employers who invoke a religious objection to providing insurance coverage for services they deem morally objectionable,” Catholic League Bill Donohue said in a statement about the proposed changes. “Because the new rules have not been finalized, and there is an opportunity for further public discussion, more progress may yet be made.”

These regulations are not final and may be subject to change depending upon public opinion. Read the rules in their entirety here.

This is a breaking news update. Stay tuned for updates.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (79)

trevthomp
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:57pm
Is this like issuing some sort of decree from mount HHS?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- The_Jerk
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:51pm
  When do we say, ” Sieg Heil,” to Obama?
  
  Report this comment
- 000degrees
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:34pm
  These regulations are not final and may be subject to change depending upon public opinion.
  
  Time has come to stand fast and tell all their “highnesses” to pack sand…..
  
  Semper Fi Molon Labe
  
  Report this comment
- Oldmantex
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 10:00pm
  This is why government should stay out of our bedrooms!! Remember when the liberals used to agree???
  
  Report this comment
COFemale
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:56pm
Hobby Lobby just needs to add a church inside its stores across the nation to offer daily devotions to help patrons who come to shop should they need it. Donations collected could be turned over to charities or help pay for clergy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- antann
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:07pm
  They already play Christian music.
  
  I love Hobby Lobby. Can’t tell you how many times I have been creatively inspired just by walking through their doors. The store during the day with children in school is very peaceful. Their fabric section gets my creative thoughts flowing.
  
  Praise music, inspiration, quiet reflection, getting in touch with the creator. I don’t think they need a preacher to qualify.
  
  Report this comment
TheMightyZeus
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:52pm
I wish I could find some examples right now, but I’m sure I’ve read of instances where the courts decided that religious freedom is universal, rather than only applying to individuals and churches. Certainly common sense dictates that, but unfortunately common sense has become very hard to come by.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wrightbobo
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:18pm
  Common sense is the major difference between humans and animals.
  
  Report this comment
- JacquesChirac
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:22pm
  Well, now we know who the SCOTUS will side with in upcoming cases.
  
  Guess the emperor used up his blackmail card to get Roberts to uphold obamacare in the first place…
  
  Report this comment
DisgustedinUSA
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:52pm
obamacare is constitutionally ILLEGAL….so what the hell are we doing even accepting the lines that this administration is drawing with it????

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Minnaloushe
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:55pm
  Yes, but they have more guns.
  
  Report this comment
- vashli19
  Posted on February 11, 2013 at 9:24pm
  The supreme court upheld the affordable care act
  
  Report this comment
The Third Archon
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:49pm
“While the rules do, indeed, clarify some uncertainty and open up the opportunity for faith-based groups to avoid the mandate, as stated, businesses are not addressed. While it’s still to early to tell how faith groups will respond to the new rules, Hobby Lobby and dozens of other businesses who are suing the government in an effort to be exempt will likely continue their battles.

These regulations are not final and may be subject to change depending upon public opinion.”
Here’s a thought–your baseless theological beliefs have NO place dictating the policies of an entire corporation.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- swimlkefish
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:40pm
  If it is my coorporationm, who are you to say my theological beliefs of how to manage my life should not apply to something I manage? It’s not a decision taken lightly, as my beliefs define my lifestyle.
  
  Report this comment
- Mary-Magda
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:03pm
  Swim: Then if you want to run your corporation as a theological organization then become a not-for-profit religious organization. As a corporation, you must abide by equal opportunity labor laws. Denying someone something that may be a medical necessity just because you don’t believe in it is discrimination. If you worked for a Jehovah’s Witness, who, you come to find out, denied healthcare coverage to get blood transfusions, would you feel discriminated against if you suddenly needed that blood transfusion or better yet a polo vaccine for your kid?
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:47pm
  what about your whimsical “ANARCHIST” (your emphasis) beliefs ARCHIE? You’re a self described “ANARCHIST” (your emphasis) why should your fanciful beliefs be dictating any policy?
  
  And nice straw man there champ. They’re not dictating policy, they’re reminding the government of it’s boundaries according the constitution. Idiot.
  
  Report this comment
- Pio
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 4:48pm
  except when that entire corporation is owned and operated and under allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. Seperation of church and state my dear, you dont like it go work for someone else
  
  Report this comment
- birthright
  Posted on February 2, 2013 at 4:02pm
  If it’s my corporation, I can base the policies on my beliefs. I respect Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-a in closing on Sundays. I would rather they were open on Sundays, but they close on their holy day just like I don’t do my business on my holy day. An employer who believes contraception or abortion is morally wrong should not have to pay for the employees to receive contraception or abortion. No one is denying them access to either by not including it in the insurance. The employees can have all they want, they just have to pay for it themselves. It is getting ridiculous how everyone wants all of their whims made rights that should be paid for by the employer or the government. If I want something, I buy it. If I can’t afford it, I decide how much I want it. If I want it more than I want something else, I don’t get the something else. It is time for all of us to grow up and make adult choices on how to spend our money. AND STOP WHINING THAT WE CAN’T HAVE EVERYTHING.
  
  Report this comment
- gigeorge
  Posted on February 2, 2013 at 5:04pm
  Mary Magda, I guarantee you that the billions of birth control pills that will be handed out are rarely for the health of the woman. They are for contraception so she can have recreational sex. I demand that ObamaCare provide me with 30 free condoms per/month for the rest of my life. This is to protect me from STD’s. At least I have a legitimate justification. This whole issue is not about reproductive rights or women’s health. It’s about using a presidential mandate to buy votes from the Democratic voter base.
  
  Report this comment
- mycomet123
  Posted on February 3, 2013 at 11:09am
  @MARY-MAGDA, If I knew an employer’ philospohy was based on the beliefs of the Jehovah’s witness & didn’t provide under their health plan, getting blood transfusions– I would not work there! I WOULDN’T FORCE A WHOLE CORPORATION TO BOW DOWN TO MY BELIEFS!.
  
  Report this comment
VetMike
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:31pm
Not enough. Keep fighting.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gonzo
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:41pm
  Agreed, the government has no business mandating the benefit packages of private employers.
  
  Report this comment
antann
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:24pm
The morning after and week after pill isn’t birth control no matter how many times the left and this president make that claim. I don’t want to pay for the consequences of another woman’s sexual choices. As for rape and incest, force the perp to pay for his crime through incarceration and financial reparations.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
RaydocX
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:20pm
when the law doesn’t follow the Constitution, how can you expect him to obey the Constitution to amend the law?

any law that cannot be summarized adequately in 10 pages or less… hell, let’s be generous, let’s say 25 pages, should NEVER be passed… this law was never read in its entirety before passage… any Congressman who voted for it should be sacked… they could have passed placing their voters into slavery or withholding care from their constituents…

as to the whole contraception debate… contraception should not be an issue… if you cannot afford to pay for your own contraception, maybe you should be studying or working for a bit instead of screwing around. The entire estimate of cost floated by Sandra Fluke and left unchallenged by the Republicans in that hearing was ridiculous unless she is pricing individual unit condoms through a gas station machine and using several a day… wait, that would make her a …

the only war on women is the one the Left pursues, telling them not to have kids, to expect equal pay despite the time they are out for their kids, insisting they be included in front line combat, and pretending they cannot take care of their own contraceptive issues…

‘the Pill’ was supposed to free women… fifty years later, its being used as a means of getting them under the Left’s control.

Look to the inner cities, women of America… is that what you want in three generations?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:09pm
Here we go again with King Obama on the path to full dictatorial authority.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:28pm
  That’s what it seems like doesn’t it? The king simply writes a regulation that forces someone to do something against their religious beliefs and it’s supposed to be okay? He’s a tyrant and he’s just getting started
  
  Report this comment
destrecht
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:08pm
what about regular business owners such as myself that are morally opposed to providing them? I’ve been trying to figure out how i can avoid this when my company grows.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SnarkyMushroom
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:22pm
  @destrecht You can always hire on the extra people as contractors. at that point, not an employee. You are paying for services at that point, and the contractor is responsible for thier own coverage.
  
  Report this comment
RealAmerican2
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:08pm
The administration HAD to do this. Legally, they have no right dictating what religious institutions permit and don’t permit, especially when it comes to birth control. So while this looks like Obama is *gifting* some kind of “exemption” to religious organizations, it’s not THAT at all. The government has no business venturing into this territory, an the administration knows it. I think they realized, had they kept pursuing this mandate with churches, they’d be up to their noses in lawsuits! Besides, they already have Planned Parenthood doing their dirty work of birth control. You’d think that would be enough…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
SnarkyMushroom
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:07pm
So the way this reads is one of two ways:
1. Companies will not be required to DIRECTLY provide contraceptive insurance. You will pay the same price for coverage, but the difference amount (which you will pay) will be given to a third party to administer the coverage.

or

2. The insurance comapny will pay for it out of pocket in order to meet the mandate.

This only allows those entities identified by the IRS as religious institutions to be allowed the “exemption”. Private companies that are filing suit are not covered by the exemtion. All this is desgined to do is reduce the amount of lawsuits to the limited funds of the private companies so that the church’s massive economical power and influence cannot be used for the benefit of the individual companies. This is nothing more than an end around folks. Its a garbage legal manuvre.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- samnjoeysgrama
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:27pm
  Yes. Take out the protesters that actually can afford to file a lawsuit and still control all the little guys. But, since “we are all socialists now”, they don’t intend to give anyone any choice. Clearly pro-choice is only about killing babies.
  
  Report this comment
- Xylliab_of_the_Znarghh
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 3:31pm
  Pay for what? Coverage that includes contraception is already no more expensive to the employer than coverage that doesn’t. Contraception costs less than medical care for children, so it saves everybody money.
  
  Report this comment
destrecht
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:06pm
Issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost neutral because they would be they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies and would experience lower costs from improvements in women’s health and fewer childbirths.

That’s the problem. Women’s health- right. We need more kids, not less.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- wrightbobo
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 1:38pm
  Do the math. If a girl chooses abortion of an unwanted child or a she chooses birth control to prevent an unwanted child, isn’t the sum of children born still zero?
  
  The causes of aborting unwanted children are rape, incest, adultery and sex without marriage. God warned against such animalistic behavior in writing and in conscience, but few have the courage to tell their daughters not to have sex before marriage. Obama is not the enemy of childbirth. We are!
  
  Report this comment
love the kids
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:06pm
Why is Obamma starting this “War on Women”??? Why is he so against women’s rights. What a “Right wing Extremist”.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
83plus
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:06pm
I’ll believe it after it happens.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
NigelTufnel
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:06pm
“Issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost neutral because they would be they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies and would experience lower costs from improvements in women’s health and fewer childbirths” And this is all you need to know about the left. They want to control the birthrate and they want “everyone” to pay for it. Notice how the church will get a pass on providing it but costs and coverage of those woman working for the church will come from other plans. Completely fine with me if conservative/evangelical/christian woman do all the birthing in America. The left views child birth as an expense….Period! I just read an article at work that says children make you healthier. Too bad the leaders in the minority communities aren’t jumping on this. This is basicly saying, “we don’t want your ghetto childs….cut em’ up boys….let’s have a party.!”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
woodyee
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:05pm
Bolschchit.

In the first place, Gaybamacare must be repealed on Constitutional grounds. Roberts was wrong ( may his skin rot incessantly and profusely up to and into the afterlife, and may the disease permeate through his immediate family), and the Congress must re-address the issue. In the meantime, ALL citizens with religious opposition to the contraception mandate need a permanent and UNCONDITIONAL opt out.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nocalifornia
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:01pm
Another “decree” from the king. He doesn’t have the right to change the law but that won’t stop him. The only reason this has come about is the push back by religious groups in the courts and the public outcry. Don’t worry liberal socialist, he will illegally but it back into the law in 3 years before he leaves office

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Sharon Rose
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:54am
More double talk.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
AvengerK
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:53am
LOL…Obama was just scolded by the Appeals Court for breaching the constitution over his supposed Senate recess appointments, making all their actions null and void. This is Obama pre-empting another embarrassment for himself and reneging on forcing faith based groups to comply with Obamacare after breaching their constitutional rights. He’s still appears to be trying to force the insurers to do it..who of course will pass on the cost to their customers.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CALLMEMSGT
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:54pm
  Here is a novel idea, how about everybody pay for their own rubbers and be done with it!
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 2:42pm
  What do you mean? What about a woman’s “reproductive rights” (whatever that term encompasses)? Surely the tax payer must pay for those rights?
  
  Report this comment
- CALLMEMSGT
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 4:01pm
  @avenge-The governent taking my tax dollars (taken from me on threat of imprisonment) or an employer who is forced to include the cost of paying for birth control for his emplorees into the cost of doing business and passing the cost to me is the same as my neighbor bringing the local police to my house and requiring me to hand over $10.00 for a box of Trojans. Womes reproductive rights is/are what we use to call keeping you legs together
  
  Report this comment
dktrdktr
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:51am
I’ll believe it when I see it. If they are backing down, it is most likely only a tactical retreat meant to protect their efforts to require all other employers to provide retroactive contraception and abortion services to their employees – even if that strongly conflicts with the employer’s religious convictions. The effort to require Catholic institutions to provide contraception and abortion services was such a sure loser in court that even the Obama adminsitration may have recognized it and were concerned that their efforts to violate everyone else’s religious liberties might be thrown out along with the case against the Church. Thus by dropping that requirement only for religious organizations, they most llikely intend to continue their efforts to make every other employer violate their religious principles if they object to being complicit in abortion,

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
YellowFin
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:49am
Obama now grants people the right to respect God’s laws.

O’ thank you king obama.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DZ-015
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:48am
They are afraid of a loss in court, if the present stated policy is not changed.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- naughtycal
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:56am
  Obamacare mandates have been deemed to be a tax by the supreme court.. All the waivers given out are not legal so either all waivers are dropped or Obamacare is dropped.
  
  Report this comment
- DZ-015
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:04pm
  Naughtycal: I hadn’t considered what you said on waivers, but it certainly seems logical. It is the law which establishes who is to be taxed, and that is a power which cannot be delegated to the Executive Branch. I like it.
  
  Report this comment
- kaydeebeau
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:15pm
  @ Naughty Gal – going further with your premise – since the Supremes declared the penalty a tax and many org are tax exempt wouldn’t that mean they do not need to provide the coverage and as a tax exempt org can’t be forced to pay the tax (penalty)???
  
  Report this comment
TEIN
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:46am
The “Leader” Administration has heard the peasants petition, and is ready to address their concerns….

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 83plus
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:52am
  But will he actually do something about in their favor or JUST talk about it.
  
  Report this comment
- gyro
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:52am
  give the peasants a candy pat them on the head then screw them over === thats the plan
  
  Report this comment
AxelPhantom
Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:43am
Wait a minute, what does the law actually say or is this another one of Obama’s executive orders where he just changes the law because he “says so”?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- BBlanski
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 11:57am
  That is what I can’t figure out. How can he just change a law passed by congress? Doesn’t it have to go back through congress to be changed?
  
  Report this comment
- CatB
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:12pm
  That is for other President’s … Republicans .. not Democrats (especially Lord high Obammer) .. where is MY waiver? .. I buy my own insurance and I am getting scr*wed .. having to pay for others birth control … which I do NOT need .. and paid for MYSELF when I did.
  
  Report this comment
- AvengerK
  Posted on February 1, 2013 at 12:14pm
  It’s such a poorly crafted”law” that unelected beaurocrats like Sebelius or the panels can shift it around like a game of three card monty. Don’t forget all the waivers she’s already given the unions.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.