March 28, 2012 |
In 1957, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the first birth-control pills, it wasn't for birth control. The contraceptives won approval as a treatment for severe menstrual disorders; temporary infertility was a side effect. Funny, women across the country suddenly started complaining in droves about severe menstrual disorders. As religiously-affiliated organizations, such as Catholic hospitals and universities, continue to complain about federal policies that would require that health insurance cover family planning (President Obama worked out a compromise deal under which the insurance companies would absorb the cost, but the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops still sees this as undue interference)
February 12, 2012 |
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said Sunday that President Obama had found the “right balance” in mandating birth control coverage while protecting religious liberty, and he said the administration would now press ahead to adopt a final rule requiring health insurers to make contraceptives available to all policyholders at no cost. This is “the right policy” and a “very good resolution” of the dispute that had flared between Catholic leaders and the White House, Lew said in a series of appearances on the Sunday talk shows. “We didn't expect there would be universal acceptance” of the compromise announced Friday, but a “broad range of groups” had applauded Obama's plan, he said.
February 12, 2012 |
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed Sunday to fight the administration's requirement that insurers provide contraceptive coverage for faith-based employers. McConnell said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that he would press legislation to exempt all employers from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives if they have religious or moral objections. "We'll be voting on that in the Senate, and you can anticipate that would happen as soon as possible.…This issue will not go away until the administration simply backs down," he said.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
March 6, 1990
Your editorial was both moving and important. As you suggest, contraceptives can help to avoid this rapidly increasing problem. But contraception is not, as you state, the only way to deal with the problem. Clearly, the prejudice in so many societies against lesbians and gay men is a means of forcing them to act as if they were heterosexual, and reproduce, or suffer punishment because they do not, ordinarily, have children. The twin goals of population stability and respect for human rights are both violated by insisting that homosexual people act against their own sexual orientation and enter heterosexual relationships.
February 28, 2012 |
While controversy over one aspect of the Obama administration's contraception rule — whether and when religiously affiliated employers must comply — has dominated recent headlines, that debate has obscured other questions about how the rules will actually be implemented. Under the healthcare law, insured women will qualify for contraceptives without a co-payment as part of a range of preventive medical services. But insurers and advocates are frustrated by the lack of details.
March 24, 2014 |
WASHINGTON - A challenge to part of President Obama's healthcare law that hits the Supreme Court on Tuesday could lead to one of the most significant religious freedom rulings in the high court's history. Four years ago, in their controversial Citizens United decision, the justices ruled that corporations had full free-speech rights in election campaigns. Now, they're being asked to decide whether for-profit companies are entitled to religious liberties. At issue in Tuesday's oral argument before the court is a regulation under the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to provide workers a health plan that covers the full range of contraceptives, including morning-after pills and intrauterine devices, or IUDs.
November 26, 2013 |
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear another legal challenge to President Obama's healthcare law, this time to decide whether a corporation can refuse to pay to cover birth control drugs that violate the religious beliefs of the firm's owners. At issue is a growing clash between some Christian employers who object to some contraceptives they consider “abortion-inducing” and potentially millions of female workers who can benefit from free birth control. The case also calls on the court to decide whether corporations have religious rights similar to the free-speech rights that were upheld in the Citizens United decision in 2010.