Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

So now anyone with ovaries has to do twice the paperwork lest they inconvenience their Catholic boss?

Obama offers faith groups new birth control rule


From the sounds of it, women will now be left to deal directly with insurance companies in order to make sure they get the coverage they need - handled entirely separately from their employer's provided insurance policy.  What kind of paperwork and loophole nightmare do these churches want to create?

Answer Question

Asked by NotPanicking at 4:52 PM on Feb. 1, 2013 in Politics & Current Events

Level 51 (421,174 Credits)
Answers (21)
  • This is the way they ("they" being whomever wishes to shit on women/the poor/the infirm, etc) always do it now. "We're happy to help you. Please fill out this ream of paperwork that must be notarized, we need something from your doctor, we'll need to interview all prior employers and neighbors, this could take up to 12 weeks" blah blah blah.

    So, not really infringing on your ability to get what you need, sort of......just making it damned near impossible to do.

    Pisses me off

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 5:10 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • My sister worked for a Catholic hospital and had to pay for the cost of the pill out of her pocket (funny thing was, it wasn't FOR BC as she had her tubes tied) She would have gladly taken the time to do this rather than pay out of pocket.

    Answer by layh41407 at 5:29 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • It's not that it's an inconvenience for him, it's only completely against his beliefs.

    Answer by missanc at 5:33 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • it's only completely against his beliefs.

    A woman who is not his wife, whom he does not sleep with, going to the doctor is against his beliefs?

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 5:34 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • It's not that it's an inconvenience for him, it's only completely against his beliefs.
    is being obese due to overeating considered wrong by this same person? Is this not against his beliefs? yet he freely pays for health insurance for this person who probably has high blood pressure, diabetes, joint issues, heart issues, etc.
    What is the difference?

    Answer by sahmamax2 at 6:29 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • What I'm wondering is how my ovarian cysts that leave me doubled over in pain for several days a month are against anyone's beliefs? If I worked for a religious based organization I would have the choice of obtaining insurance coverage elsewhere or opting for a more expensive way (but covered by my employer's insurance) of getting rid of my pain. The cheapest and least invasive way to treat it is to have me go on the pill (I haven't yet, but it's tempting). So I guess my choices would be seek insurance elsewhere, choose a more invasive and more expensive treatment, or jump through a million hoops into a Olympic sized pool of paperwork in order to get the treatment I need (the pill)?

    Answer by anime_mom619 at 7:14 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • I'm so tired of this subject. While I'm not Catholic and have nothing against BC, I'm not going to force someone to pay for something that offends them. BC isn't illegal, get it some where else or fill out the paperwork or whatever. Nevermind the fact that our federal tax money funds abortion and God knows what else that offends me. Employer-provided health insurance of any kind is becoming a luxury, it's not a right.

    Answer by HHx5 at 9:04 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • "Employer-provided health insurance of any kind is becoming a luxury, it's not a right. "

    No, but it is a benefit offered as part of an employment package, and if an employee accepted a certain salary plus benefits, then they should be able to use those benefits for what they are intended for... health care. If an employee can no longer use that benefit due to the employer's stance on certain health issues, then I would think they are well within their rights to renegotiate their employment contract and ask for a raise in order to compensate 1) for the money the employee now has to spend on another, more expensive policy (because individual plans are more expensive then group plans), and 2) the company isn't paying for the employee to be on insurance anymore, so they should be able to compensate the employee accordingly.

    Answer by anime_mom619 at 10:55 PM on Feb. 1, 2013

  • They did not create the problem in the first place.

    Answer by Dardenella at 2:36 AM on Feb. 2, 2013

  • My point is that if you have access to employer-provided health insurance, count yourself lucky. And yes, I can agree with you, it is a contract you enter into upon employment. So you knowingly agree to work for a Catholic employer. Jobs are not rights either.

    Answer by HHx5 at 8:20 AM on Feb. 2, 2013

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.