It’s a sexy issue (literally) and it’s in the hands of the Supreme Court. The issue is, “Can a law, Obamacare, require for-profit companies of a certain size (privately held) that are against the contraceptive mandate on religious grounds to offer health plans that cover contraception for free (under free preventive care services)?”
I don’t believe that such a privately held, for-profit company with 50 or more employees should be eligible for a religious exemption BUT I believe that the Supreme Court will decide that such companies DO get such an exemption on religious grounds to the contraception mandate.
While the PPACA offers an alternative to complying with its contraceptive mandate, under Section 1513 of the PPACA that amends Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code section 4980H, “Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage,” talks about an “assessable payment” charged to employers who don’t provide Obamacare insurance (extended starting date of 2015). Under the IRC 4980H (c) Definitions and special rules, (2) applicable large employer, (D) application of employer size to assessable penalties, we find the magic word, PENALTIES.
This means that though there is an option available under the PPACA, to opt out of offering health insurance and then pay the ASSESSABLE PAYMENTS, that such payments as defined by the IRC are in fact PENALTIES which would penalize a company taking the OPTION of not offering an Obama plan based on religion eg penalizing religion.
I also believe that the comparatively small financial burden of obtaining birth control, especially since no such birth control options are offered for “free” to males under Obamacare will support a decision that OKs a privately held, large employer from being required to offer the contraception mandate on religious grounds.
But there are other provisions of Obamacare that I believe contradict religions that should be included. Why stop at contraception?
For instance, aren’t males seen at least as equal to females in Judeo-Christian religions? So, why would we decide as a nation to support policy that pays for free WOMEN WELLNESS visits and screenings and not be upset that those same freebies aren’t offered to men? In addition to the absence of the free MALE WELLNESS visit, there is no separate allowance made for free testicular cancer or prostate screenings.
Most religions today DO NOT support, endorse or tolerate domestic violence. Why then does Obamacare only protect WOMEN from domestic violence by providing for FREE domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling only for women? Not only does this violate religion by paying for the prevention of domestic violence against women but not men, but it flies in the face of the National Domestic Violence Hotline determination that one in four women (24.3%) may face domestic violence, but ONE IN SEVEN MEN (13.8%) are victims.
Most Judeo-Christian religions do NOT support sex outside of marriage, yet maternity and newborn care are REQUIRED to be covered as essential health benefits for every pregnant woman with a qualified health plan even if those women are UNMARRIED. Why no uproar?
Even if the contraception mandate were OK, if we really wanted to treat people fairly, another religious tenet, why would sterilizations be covered for women (for free) and not for men seeking vasectomies? This one not only violates fairness but actually backfires making the choice of having a procedure that is medically usually simpler, less expensive and less likely to have complications (the vasectomy) more expensive than it would be for a woman to have the more complicated and expensive yet under Obamacare “free” sterilization, promoting female sterilization over male sterilization.
There are religions that prohibit the use of specific vaccines based on their beliefs about God’s will or about the ingredients in a vaccine or even the fact that providing inoculation will encourage conduct that violates the religion, (such as the free vaccine for HPV). Yet these inoculations are provided for “free” under Obamacare, promoting their use.
There is also the issue of honoring your mother and father, yet under Obamacare, older people are the ONLY ones besides smokers who can be charged HIGHER premiums.
I believe the Supreme Court will permit the religious exemption from the contraception mandate for privately held companies with 50 or more employees that want to comply with Obamacare but NOT the contraception mandate because while Obamacare offers the option of opting out for companies, the consequence of that option is clearly labeled a penalty under the Internal Revenue Code which would amount to penalizing (applying a penalty) to a company based on religious belief.
I can only hope that other challenges are made to counter-religious provisions of Obamacare. (Note the above is my opinion.)
