House Panel on whether women should have access to contraceptives

Here's the case I was thinking about in addressing your polygamy concerns. It's actually about a bigamist who felt his First Amendment right to religious freedom was being infringed upon...SCOTUS thought otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v._United_States

Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court argued that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the true spirit of the First Amendment was that Congress could not legislate against opinion, but could legislate against action.

I believe the panel has to do with whether religious based health instituitions can be forced to give women access to contraceptives even if they are paid by health care. Part of Obama's latetest health care mandate is to force health care insurance to pay something like 90+% for all contraceptives costs and certain religious based hospitals are balking at having to hand them out when the patient requests for them.

WASHINGTON — Senator Scott Brown, entering a political thicket pitting women’s reproductive rights against beliefs of some religious institutions, is cosponsoring a bill that would allow employers and insurers to limit specific health care coverage, including contraception, based on religious or moral objections.

Brown last week became one of 37 senators, nearly all Republicans, who have signed on to support the bill introduced by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri. The bill has gained momentum following the uproar surrounding President Obama’s January announcement that universities and hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church and other religious groups need to provide contraception as part of their employee health coverage.

Blunt's legislation, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, would amend the federal health reform law to allow any employer or insurance company to deny services that are "contrary to the provider's religious beliefs or moral convictions."

Critics say it would open a huge loophole in the health care overhaul, which requires insurers and employers to offer an "essential health benefits package," including free preventive services.

"It would let any plan or any employer refuse coverage for any service that they deem immoral," said Donna Crane, policy director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

She said, for example, it would open the door to insurers refusing to cover HIV counseling for a gay teenager, or declining to provide maternity and prenatal care to a pregnant, single woman. She said Blunt and other Republicans were not only trying to restrict women's access to contraception but to "dismantle" a key element of the health care law.

Blunt suggested his critics were trying to twist the debate, making it about birth control and women's health care when it should be about religious freedom. His bill, he said, it is aimed at rolling back any current and future health care mandates that impinge on Americans' First Amendment protections.

"The bill protects a 225-year-old right," he said.

He also flatly rejected the suggestion that his bill would open up new "loopholes," arguing anyone seeking a conscience exemption under his proposal would have to make a case based on current legal principles, such as those used in employment decisions.

"You have to be able to have the same standard of proof that you have in hiring law now," Blunt said. "You can't just say I have a religion that's opposed to treating diabetes, so I'm not going to (cover) diabetes. This is an established legal principal."

Still, he acknowledged that his bill was broadly framed.

"The Respect for Rights of Conscience Act doesn't mention any medical procedure," he said. "It treats Christian Scientists just like Catholics, and Muslims just like Methodists. The principal here is you cannot tell these institutions that they have to do things that violate their faith beliefs. And it's as simple as that."

Are you going to force them to offer abortions as well?? How about the super expensive pregnancy efforts like in vitro? Where do you draw the line at this attempt to rope family planning efforts into health insurance, a program that was intended to keep people from ill health?

Well, that case was only used as illustration to allay your fears of religion run amok and I'm not sure it's as relevant to the current issue as, say, last month's SCOTUS ruling on religious protections concerning a church's hiring and firing practices. Even that one isn't 100% pertinent since it involved the 'ministerial exception' clause, but there was interesting back and forth between the justices and the government attorney on the First Amendment issue (with the justices eventually rejecting the government's argument that the First Amendment doesn't protect churches from government ordering of who they can hire or fire).

Unfortunately, the Oversight Committee hearing didn't go into much of that, as it became bogged down on other matters. I want my 2 hours back!

I pray that bill don't get anywhere.