Restricting birth control under the guise of religious liberty
On Wednesday the Missouri General Assembly will convene for its annual veto session. One of the issues before us will be whether to override Governor Jay Nixon’s veto of Senate Bill 749.
Senate Bill 749 purports to be legislation to protect the right of people, churches, health care providers and employers who do not want to pay for pay for contraception or abortions when to do so would be contrary to their religious or moral belief. The veto override decision is being characterized as a fight to protect religious liberties. This characterization is false.
Missouri law already prevents any employer, individual or self-insurer from having to pay for contraception when it is contrary to their religious or moral belief. Subsections 4 to 7 of Section 376.1199 RSMo provide an exception to the requirement to provide coverage for contraceptives. See section 376.1199, RSMo. Similarly, with regard to abortion, a person, health care provider, insurance provider or business having a religious or moral objection to abortion may not be forced to provide, pay for, or provide coverage for abortion. See section 376.805, RSMo. A health care provider’s right to refuse to provide abortion services is further protected by sections197.032, RSMo and 404.830, RSMo. All sections can be found online at moga.mo.gov/statutes. These statutes have been part of Missouri law for many years.
In short, the current law already completely protects any person, religious institution, health care provider or insurance provider who has a religious or moral objection from being forced to provide or pay for any contraceptive or abortion service, except to save the life of the mother.
The new law does not change or enhance any of these protections.
I am dismayed that there are political voices, including my own church, the Roman Catholic Church, that claim that SB 749 is somehow necessary to protect religious liberty. The Church knows or should know that it is false because the current law, irrespective of SB 749, protects a self-insurer from being forced to pay for contraception or abortion. The Church is a self-insurer and is currently operating under that section with the full protection that those laws provide.
I will be pleased to meet in open debate or discussion with any primary spokesperson for the Church to discuss this matter in public.
Many thousands of Missourians are being given information about SB 749 that is simply not true. The current law is clear and complete.
SB 749 adds nothing to the aforementioned protections now afforded to every Missouri person, church or health care provider.
There is no “religious liberty” issue. The entire campaign is simply a political exercise. SB 749 is a restatement of current law for political proposes and I am not willing to duplicate the law so that political operatives can force votes for political purposes.
The bill makes only one actual change to current law. The portion of Senate Bill 749 that Gov. Nixon was concerned about, and the basis for his veto, is the additional power given insurers to circumvent the will of employees and employers.
Under the bill, insurers are given the power to deny contraception coverage at the discretion of the employer, even when the employee wants it. Thus, the only real effect of SB 749 is to deny contraception to those who want it and are willing to pay for it. All the talk about religious liberty is simply a cover for an effort to further restrict birth control.
I appreciate sincere opposition to contraception or abortion. Sadly, many Missourians are being manipulated for political purposes. I will not be part of that. In fact, I have a moral objection to doing so. My moral and religious objection arises from Exodus 20:16, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
Missouri State Rep. Chris Kelly, a Columbia Democrat, represents District 24. He is a lawyer.
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoWell stated!
Consider the Religious liberty is also a smokescreen to the real issue of “free market” medical insurance vs an additional insurance tax on every American. When in fact that free market is not available, except to a select few, and monopolized as made available to the average american. Nobody “shops” for medical insurance but they must generate the premise for the need of a free market approach to medical coverage so, they expliot the religious angle. Its an attempt to disrupt and defeat any national cohesion on health care and maintain the profit margins the benefactors have agreed on. This same “free market” manipulation of our society is happening in the power industry. If Joe citizen figures out how to provide cheaper power to everyone and the benifit is obvious to society, but the current power providers can’t compete with him, they will strategize to defeat the attempt at a socially superior approach to power at the expense of all Americans and the benefit of a few.
Dan Hartshorn
9 months, 1 week ago“Under the bill, insurers are given the power to deny contraception coverage at the discretion of the employer, even when the employee wants it.”
And hence the point of the bill.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoIt is not an employee’s choice if the businessowner is paying ANY portion of the premium….
You want the pill, buy the damm thing….
JR Beillenhouser
9 months, 1 week agoI want full coverage in the event I get cancer. I also want full eye care. And free cancer screenings and …..
I don’t get all of those things either.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week agoHealth insurance is an earned employee benefit. It belongs to the employee just like the paycheck they earn. Cardinal Dolan’s own state had the provision he now object’s to in law long before he decided to jump into the political arena. His motivations are purely political and as such should cost him his tax exempt status. If he want’s to politic from his pulpit he should pay his taxes.
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week ago“I want full coverage in the event I get cancer. I also want full eye care. And free cancer screenings and”
…if you’re on Medicare you do…
Kevin Sheely
9 months, 1 week agoBecause of course the top priority of a dying and broke former superpower should be free contraceptives and unrestricted taxpayer-funded abortion on demand
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week ago“taxpayer-funded abortion on demand”
No Kevin you’re not paying attention. Catch up will ya? This is about the health benefits that employees earn from their employers.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 1 week agoMark, you once again say that health care is an earned employee benefit and therefore belongs to the employee. You are right, but the benefit isn’t the employee’s unless it is part of the employment agreement. Once the employer says they will provide a benefit, then then have to follow through. But, what this discussion is about is if the employer should be able to be forced to provide a benefit they otherwise would not.
I know it sounds good to say earned benefits belong to the employee, because it is true. But, it doesn’t have anything to do with this debate, because the debate is surrounds the right of the employer to provide what they want to provide.
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoExactly the point Kent. We have fair hiring laws and equal pay laws that keep employers from hiring who they want and paying what they want. Why should we let them discriminate with benefit packages. If you were considering a job and EVERYTHING about the job was what you wanted but they would not support your position for planned parenthood, you could take the job and handle that yourself but why? And what if you don’t find out until after you’ve taken the job? Not to mention that employers with no religous conviction will stop offering the benefit for purely financial gain reasons. I understand benefits packages are all over the place already but these types of discrepencies are supposed to be controlled for consumer protection. We need to minimize “buyer beware” conditions in our health inurance.
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoAlso, Kent, they are already making you roll the dice when you sign up. “Do you want PPO or HMO” They are making you acknowlege that sometimes you are not going to have coverage. How ridiculous is that? GM could start offering weekend only warranties and it would be the same as we are offered in medical insurance. Should be continue to let them add restrictions. Saturday only warranties?
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 1 week agoAs an aside:
Doesn’t it strike you as odd that the folks who are busy pandering to right-wing religious nuts (Yes, the Catholic hierarchy qualifies, since 90% of Catholic women ignore their “doctrine” regarding contraception) seem to have no interest in the well-being of a child once he gets from “unborn” to “post-born”? You know, like funding child-care, CHIP, and head-start….Oh, and education.
Of course, that costs money. Pandering is paid for in the currency of hypocrisy.
But, I should not be too harsh. After all, these guys are willing to spend billions on feeding and sheltering many children of poverty and neglect by spending billions on… prisons.
Prisons. The Right-Wing Welfare Program.
Kevin Sheely
9 months, 1 week agoYou lefties are advocating the murder of children for the sake of convenience. And not even murdering children in the ‘safe, legal, and rare’ way your hero Bill Clinton advocated, but rather because you seem to believe it’s such a wonderful end in itself to murder children that we should force everyone, even (especially?) the Catholic Church, to pay for it.
You’re the extremist nut-jobs, not us. You’re the ones who refuse compromise. You’re the ones driven by ideology. You cling to ideas of big government utopia more tightly than any redneck ever clung to his guns and religion.
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoKevin - Does our position allow for yours? Yes. Does your position allow for ours? No Who then is the more extreme and demanding of a moral position that abortion is murdering a baby when science says otherwise and the rest of the world agrees and encourages planned parenthood.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoEarth to Robert…..
There are no, none, nada laws that say an employer HAS TO PROVIDE BENEFITS.
You lefties are so damm ignorant of employer’s rights it is pathetic…..
An employer must pay minimum wage and not discriminate based on sex… The employer has the right to offer benefits or not… However, under the golden one, aka the big ZERO, the govt. is going to say if you offer health care you have to offer the Fluke’s of the world the pill… How wonderful, and adhering to the constitution is this lefties????
Mark Hastert
9 months, 1 week agoExtra, extra, read all about it! Apparently Obamacare isn’t so bad after all. Romney announced that there are many important parts of it that he would keep. By November he’ll be completely turned around. That’s gonna leave a mark….
And Kevin. You’re position is strictly founded in your particular religious dogma, one not shared by all Christians, not even all Catholics. The Constitution guarantees us freedom of and FROM religion. You practice your way and leave the rest of us to practice ours.
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoEarth to George!!!
Nobody said they had to provide benefits.
And the rest of my point is still valid.
You righties, want a survival of the fitest society that forces women to have children and then puts those children on the street if they don’t “get off their butt” and get a job and then allow employers to call 1099 temporary work “jobs” That is what we would have if the people AS A COUNTRY hadn’t said NO, thats not acceptable. And you just keep griping about it.
LOL. If you couldn’t pass judgement on people each day, what would you do with your time?
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoRobert,
Your QUOTE….
“Why should we let them discriminate with benefit packages.”
not my quote leftie….
Robert Copher
9 months, 1 week agoGeorge,
Seriously, where in that statement do I even enfer all employers are offering benefit packages. The employers that are though, are having to create groups and purchase in order to get access to the free market of products and then made available to the employees who are ultimately a partial consumer. You ability to purchase should not be limited to those employers in your town, That can greatly effect rates and avaialability of coverages in smaller communities.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 1 week agoRobert, another of your quotes:
” I understand benefits packages are all over the place already but these types of discrepencies are supposed to be controlled for consumer protection.”
Benefit packages are offered at the option of the employer. You are saying they are “supposed” to be controlled. This is false. They are what the EMPLOYER wants them to be, not some overpaid friggin bureaucrat which would be your choice…