One Battle in the War on Women Won

Filed in National by on August 2, 2011

Kathleen Sibelius and the Health and Human Services Department accepted the recommendations of the U.S. Institute of Medicine to expand the required women’s wellness services offered by insurance companies. This decision affects private insurance only — there aren’t federal funds covering these new services. But this is a welcome bit of good news, considering the highly organized onslaught women’s rights are suffering at this moment.

In a news conference Monday, Sebelius cast the new rules as part of a broader effort in the new health-care law to build a nationwide system focusing on prevention. But she also said they were crucial to another of the law’s goals: “to bring fairness to the health insurance market for women”.

Insurance plans are to begin coverage of these services — without co-pay — starting 1 August 2012.  The required preventative care services include:

  • annual “well-woman” visits
  • contraception services, including sterilization, implants, prescription contraception including Plan B, and other methods
  • screening of pregnant women for gestational diabetes
  • screening for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
  • more support for breast-feeding mother, including the provision of breast pumps
  • counseling and screening for possible domestic violence.

There is a refusal clause proposed with this, giving religious groups or insurance provided by religious groups the opportunity to NOT cover birth control for its female customers.  I don’t understand how the Government of the United States of America can provide sanction for so-called religious people to treat its women as second class citizens, but there you have it.  Which sort of looks like if there is going to be Sharia Law in the US, it is coming via our homegrown Christianists, right? Because the point of Sharia Law is to create law of the state that is supposedly based upon religious texts. As a result, women and women’s issues are treated as second-class and certainly subject to patriarchal imposition of controlling rules on women. So let’s be clear about the codification of these refusal clauses — *this* is what creeping Sharia looks like.

ps to the News Journal — Bloomberg provides your model for how editorials tackling this kind of subject get done.  It doesn’t matter that they agree with me — they got there in a way that didn’t require truthiness or the so-called common wisdom.

Tags: ,

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (12)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dana says:

    Cassandra wrote:

    Insurance plans are to begin coverage of these services — without co-pay — starting 1 August 2012.

    Which means, of course, that the premiums the insurance companies charge must be increased. The federal regulations have added another area of coverage which must be provided, and will require that there be no co-payments, so the insurance payments to medical providers will have to be that much higher.

  2. puck says:

    the insurance payments to medical providers will have to be that much higher.

    As opposed to the current system, which provides a discount for being male.

    Earth to Dana – nothing is free. At least the increases will be spread over all customers instead of targeted at women. Spreading costs over all customers is exactly how insurance is supposed to work but never does (unless required by law).

  3. Mitch Crane says:

    Insurance companies can not just “increase premiums”. Premiums must be approved for each policy type and each group based on complex actuarial figures. When there is a mandate that coverage be granted to those with pre-existing conditions, for example, or for autism spectrum disorder (a current Bill I support), it does not mean that policyholders benefitting from the required coverage have to shoulder the costs. The purpose of insurance is to spread the risk ( and the cost ) among the class or group. The main reason co-pays are eliminated when they are is to encourge the insured to seek treatment and prevent a more expensive claim later. The elimination of co-pays for these services for women will result in more women of limited financial means, but with insurance, to get needed services. Itis a good think for all.

  4. John Manifold says:

    Congrats to Mitch for explaining so well. The News-Journal editorial board’s editorial on this topic was beneath clueless. It needed this rebuttal:

    http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110728/OPINION07/107280328/Full-health-coverage-contraception-big-step-forward

  5. Republican David says:

    We always have respected a religous exemption in areas that cross into lifestyles. That is what makes us a free country. I do not see the fairness of mandating these to be without copays. What men’s health services are without copays? Why should contraceptives be treated differently and given special status?

    Naturally these will result in higher premiums because the costs will go up when you add services with no copays. The premiums are based upon a certain profit level. I doubt the increase will be that high. I think the entire law will go away in 2013. I doubt we will find out.

  6. Aoine says:

    “We always have respected a religous exemption in areas that cross into lifestyles”ROTFLMAO!… unless its the Muslims looking for the religious exemption.

    David – there you go agin – jumping to conclusions – you obviously dont spend much time reading your blog-mates, those of the “creeping Sharia-law fear” and mosque on ground Zero crowd – are you a Herman Cain fan???

    so David – again you are OK with the Insurance/drug companies paying for VIAGRA nd CIALIS and other ED drugs for men, so their quality of life is enhanced (not saying that women may not reap some benefit from this :-)) – but not birth-control for women, so their quality of life is equally enhanced without the worry of the potential end result??

    so, the drug companies can pay for men to get it up – but not assist women with dealing with the consequences of the stiff dick with no conscience??

    because your religious views mandate women be barefoot and pregnant and sex is for procretion only??

    UGH – how….PAROCHIAL! I bet you love the Life of Brian skit with the family with all the kids singing in the song – “every little sperm is sacred”

    (disclaimer – most men I know have a conscience – I am not demeaning men at all – just drawing a parellel)

  7. skippertee says:

    I have always been an advocate for “FREE RANGE SPERM”.
    Women s birth control choices seem to allow for this.
    The thought of millions and millions of poor little spermies left to suffocate in those death-trap, latex coffins horrifies me.

  8. cassandra_m says:

    Go to your room, skip.

    Thanks, Mitch, for that great explanation of how the costs of these services would be handled.

  9. V says:

    No copays for contraception is a cheaper alternative than the medical care for taking unplanned pregnancies to term. As a fiscal conservative you would think David would be behind this.

    Also freer access to birth control reduces the demand for abortions. As a social conservative you would think David would be behind this.

  10. Aoine says:

    you would also think David would stay under his rock

    everytime he comes over here he gets spanked, as his brand of “logic”, well just isnt logical.

    But then, we tend to actually…… think

    David just repeats conservative memes..

  11. socialistic ben says:

    V, the cons want to reduce the number of abortions by forcing women to have 400 BABIES!!!!!

  12. cassandra m says:

    We always have respected a religous exemption in areas that cross into lifestyles.

    This is, of course, how some Americans justified miscegenation laws, right? Americans used their religious views to justify slavery at one point too. (See stories of Ham or Phineas)

    What we learned as a country is that the freedom of all is the thing that the government should be upholding. Religious exceptions to that freedom are not meant to be sanctioned by the government. Claiming religious exceptions to maintain bigotries or to restrict someone else’s freedom is pretty un-American. And there is no reason for this government to grant exceptions that let religious groups restrict the care that women get. The government would come down on these same plans like a sack of bricks if these plans decided to not cover sickle cell anemia or some other disease that mostly strikes a minority group. These refusal clauses are pandering, pure and simple.