If Belmont Abbey stops providing health care coverage to its
employees, it will be because it chose to stop providing it, not
because it was forced to do so. If the administrators of the college
believe that it is preferable to leave all employees uninsured to
prevent the possibility that one of them might purchase birth control
pills subsidized by a health insurance plan, then it really doesn't
matter whether its motivation is rooted in religious doctrine or the
belief that birth control disrupts evolution; either way the
administrators make a deliberate choice. That such a choice is one an
employer can make and impose on its employees is part of what sets
health care in the United States apart from most of the developed
world. I leave to a more appropriate thread the discussion of whether
that's a bug or a feature.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu 954.262.3835 (fax)
Quoting Will Esser <willes...@yahoo.com>:
My understanding is that college administration discovered (after a
change in insurance providers) that the new insurance policy covered
abortion, sterilization, and contraception. Since all three are
contrary to Catholic teaching, the college administration
immediately requested its private health insurer to eliminate
coverage for these items. I'm told that North Carolina law has a
specific state exemption which permits a religious employer to
provide health insurance which does not cover these items, so as a
matter of NC state law, the college was on firm ground. In fact,
but for the change in health insurance providers, I do not believe
these items would have ever been covered to begin with.
(And of course, there is no prohibition on private individuals
paying for excluded services on their own; it's just a question of
whether a religious employer should be required to pay for services
or items which it believes are morally objectionable).
At the end of the day, it really creates an interesting dynamic
because there is no federal or state law which requires Belmont
Abbey to offer priavte health insurance coverage. If there is a
holding that Belmont Abbey cannot offer health insurance coverage
without covering abortion, sterilization and contraception, then
Belmont Abbey will simply be forced to stop offering health
insurance coverage for its employees (a result which would more
adversely affect staff members, than the faculty who brought the
challenge in the first place).
Will
Will Esser --- Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam
Charlotte, North Carolina
********************
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark;
the real tragedy is when men are afraid of the light.
Plato (428-345 B.C.)
********************
--- On Sat, 8/15/09, Michael R. Masinter <masin...@nova.edu> wrote:
From: Michael R. Masinter <masin...@nova.edu>
Subject: Re: EEOC says Catholic College Discriminated by Removing
Contraceptive Coverage from Health Insurance
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Date: Saturday, August 15, 2009, 5:51 PM
The PDA makes denial of health insurance benefits relating to
pregnancy sex discrimination without regard to whether an employer
denies men coverage for some other condition that affects only men.
Denying coverage for a prescription drug that prevents pregnancy, a
risk to which only women are exposed, may therefore be sex
discrimination under the PDA even if men are not denied coverage for
vasectomies. Whether the cost of prevention of pregnancy, as
distinct from the health related cost of pregnancy, counts as one of
the risks and burdens associated with pregnancy the PDA was intended
to relieve women from bearing under employer provided health
insurance and other employee benefit programs might better frame the
question a court ultimately will have to answer.
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of Law Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University 954.262.6151 (voice)
masin...@nova.edu 954.262.3835 (fax)
Quoting "Vance R. Koven" <vrko...@gmail.com>:
Whatever else may be right or wrong with Gilbert or the statute, Griswold
was a constitutional claim based on the flat prohibiting by legislation of a
form of birth control for women, whereas the EEOC finding in Belmont Abbey
is a matter of what the college will fund as part of its private health
insurance. Presumably women are still free to obtain contraception on their
own nickel.
Have we ascertained that the Belmont Abbey insurance policy, and the
college's internal policy, permitted men to obtain condoms and/or more
medically-oriented forms of birth control (e.g. vasectomies, spermicides)?
If so, then there's a live sex-discrimination issue. If not, then the EEOC
decision may be subject to question.
Vance
On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Steven Jamar <stevenja...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure how paul arrives at his characterization of my response to an
inquiry of another in which I sketch a possible way a court could go wrong.
Nonetheless, it seems to me that even though Gilbert was overturned by
legislation, the legislation did not in fact reach the illogic of the
court's reasoning, but rather the outcome of that reasoning.
While I think that a court that would reason as I hypothesized one might
would be wrong in doing so in light of the dialogue between the Court and
Congress(see boumediene), I fear I have seen such toturing of laws often
enough to not consider such error to beyond the realm of possibility.
I guess I don't quite see how a statute based claim with EP overtones would
impact a constitutional liberty-based privacy claim, though at times we do
cross those sorts of boundaries.
Stev
Sent from Steve Jamar's iPhone
On Aug 15, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Paul Finkelman <paul.finkel...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
--
Vance R. Koven
Boston, MA USA
vrko...@world.std.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that
are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
(rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
