This item appeared in Salon, one of the most dishonest online publications. It went on to say: “This proposal attacks an existing rule known as the “contraception mandate,” which requires federal agencies to include birth control in the list of preventive health care services that the Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover without a copay. This rule, written by Health and Human Services under President Barack Obama’s administration, has long riled religious conservatives, who launched a series of legal challenges to the mandate, on the basis that forcing religious business owners or nonprofits to offer health care plans that cover contraception violates their religious freedom.
“What the Trump administration has now proposed is letting employers block their employees from getting contraception coverage at all. If an employer thinks only sluts use birth control, he can simply refuse to let a woman’s insurance plan cover it — without alerting the government so it can replace the coverage that the boss is blocking. It’s a crafty maneuver: Without repealing the contraception mandate outright, Trump would let employers drop coverage with no government replacement. ‘It’s kind of unprecedented that employers can reach into your health insurance this way,’ said Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, in a phone interview. ‘This is singling out a certain kind of health care for special attention,’ Blanchard continued, adding that it’s both intrusive and a violation of the employee’s ‘rights to their faith and their beliefs about sexuality.”
This is the classic “red herring” argument, diverting attention from the real issue with a false argument. Let’s dissect this particular fish, whose bones appear in red.
- They are NOT letting employers block contraceptive coverage, they are proposing removing a mandate on it. The mandate was the REAL overreach, not removing it!
- Where in the US or any State Constitution does it empower government to provide contraception?
- Removing a gov’t mandate violates employee rights to their faith…?? Come on, the last thing Salon or it’s writers or the government officials they support care about is religious liberty. They only drag it out to support a completely spurious argument.
- The article goes on and on in that absurd vein, actually saying that without the federal gov’t mandating that employers’ health insurance cover contraception, women won’t be able to get it. See the next paragraph for the truth.
For those whose employer health plan decided not to cover oral contraceptives, on the website lowestmed.com, a month supply of a common generic oral contraceptive (Tri-Sprintec) was $13.91 at Safeway with a printable coupon. For women who are not employed and who meet the income guidelines, Medicaid covers prescriptions for free. But the truth never counts for Salon and this type of red journalism. Many employers, especially the largest, would want contraception covered regardless of mandate. Even for those who would not cover it, the issue would virtually never be “only sluts use it.” It would be economics. A woman could purchase generic contraceptives for as low as $14/month, while if she got them for nothing out of pocket via employee health insurance, the pharmacy could charge the insurance way more, possibly over $100. A mandate on covering any condition means every employer (and employees who pay a premium) must pay more for insurance. So who is really trampling on rights?
That being said, I WOULD OBJECT TO REMOVING THE CONTRACEPTIVE MANDATE ON THIS BASIS: IF IT WAS GUARANTEED THAT FEWER LIBERALS WOULD REPRODUCE! THIS WOULD DO MORE TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING VIA HOT AIR THAN ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION.