HHS Mandate: More Questions than Answers

The President has mandated that all insurance plans provide coverage for contraceptives, abortafacients and sterilization free of charge. This was recently amended to force insurance companies to provide these services free of charge to those who work for employers that do not wish to cover the services. This mandate brings up two broad issues regarding medical care for all people.

One: Is there a religious liberty violation in forcing religious organizations to purchase insurance coverage either directly or indirectly that provides these services?

Based on practicality there is a religious liberty violation even in forcing the mere purchase of coverage for services in which an organization does not believe or forcing them to pay a fine if they refuse to purchase insurance at all. For example, Catholics see their hospitals, charities, schools, and universities to be extensions of their worship of the Lord. The teaching of the church is that artificial contraception and abortion are immoral and evil. Therefore, a law that forces church-based organizations to provide funding for services that they deem evil or immoral is forcing them to cooperate in evil or immorality.



When Catholics serve the lord it means providing services to the poor and others in the community under the commandment to "Love they neighbor." This dedication of services should not be used to penalize these institutions for not providing services that are against the moral teaching of the Church. The government should never tell an organization that either violate your conscience, be fined, or close. The faithful see the services they provide as acts of charity that illustrate their faith to people.  This 'faith in action' should not be demanded to provide services deemed wrong by Church teaching.



Two: Is it a just solution to force the cost onto insurance companies who will in turn raise all premiums so that religious institutions will be paying indirectly for said products and services?

The solution of shifting the cost to insurance companies is unjust because not only are they being forced to provide services without profit they will increase insurance to cover the cost which means that indirectly organizations mentioned above will be indirectly participating in activities believed to be immoral. This is a violation of both religious liberty and individual liberty of a company. The violation to the company is that we are requiring insurance companies to provide a certain services free of charge while charging extra for other voluntary and elective services. This also does not allow them to be completely upfront with the price of their products because the price of the mandate  will be included in policies.


Three: Is it just, when there is a known issue with seniors on fixed incomes having to make choices between co-pays for truly life life saving medications and food or paying bills, that we allow anyone to receive products that are for the majority of users elective without a co-pay? This question can be amended to include any American who pays a co-pay on all medications that are necessary and in some cases for supplies that are absolutely needed must take the money out of pocket because insurance does not cover that product.

It is not just to mandate free contraceptive coverage when every other product or service requires a co-pay and for those without insurance it comes completely out of pocket. It also comes completely out of pocket when the needed product or service is not covered by insurance.

The argument regarding choices between paying bills or eating and purchasing contraceptives falls on deaf ears because those who need medication for such conditions as blood pressure, cancer or simple pain management must pay a co-pay. So, why should those desiring contraceptive products also have to pay a co-pay? This sounds fair seeing as most co-pays are low. For example, a young woman receiving services may pay as little as $10 for their prescription.

No class of products or services should be favored in such a way that it is unfair to others who don't use that product or service. Contraceptives being offered free of charge, generally, may not lead to an increase in usage of the products, but will increase costs for everyone.

Four: When it is NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood who wish to have this mandate would it not be more just to require Planned Parenthood to fulfill the mandate by providing the products and services to women at severely reduced prices, according to income, or free of charge?

Since it is Certain organizations that want favor particular products and services for distribution these organizations should pay for the mandate. It would be just to mandate Planned Parenthood provide the contraceptives free of charge because they are the ones demanding this course of action. In fact, for insurance companies to be mandated to grant free and allow Planned Parenthood to collect a cent on this is completely unjust.  Planned Parenthood should not collect a cent on this and should have to forgo the payment they would receive from the insurance.