www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx I get it that many think that the Federal Government has no business mandating anything in connection with health insurance - but that is a Commerce Clause issue. If the Republicans are really so upset at the requirement of contraceptive coverage by employers with religious objections, then why was there no outrage during all the years when states were enforcing the same requirement? It smells like the new found Republican outrage is more a weapon to use against Obama than a genuine Church-State argument. I confess, however, that I've just heard the Democrat's argument on this issue. One of you outraged Republicans educate me. Why was there no Church-State issue when States were enforcing the requirement? (again, please stick to the Church-State issue; we all get the Commerce Clause argument).
It's hard to stick with the church-state argument, because I don't oppose it on that basis. Having said that, as you can see, the Texas law on point does create an exception for religious convictions, which suggests that there was some controversy on the issue at the time.
Perhaps somewhat off-topic, but- For those that argue that only stupid, low-income minorities shouldn't get employer insurance covered, government mandated, or subsidized contraception, and should instead make wise decisions and pay for the contraception out of their own pocket instead of stupidly having unprotected sex- If you accept some of the stereotypical views, one might consider the residual effects that this proposes - a continual growth of low-income families that are already incapable of supporting the kids they already have; creating a sub-culture that than then contributes to crime; that then contributes to increased crimes for which society pays a high toll; that requires an increase in the prison and parole populations and thereby increases the tax burden on the good, law abiding citizens, etc., etc... The country might be a lot better off just mandating coverage/availability. You'd think that God-loving, law-abiding, tax-reducing Republicans would be in favor of decreasing the low-income population, crime, and the tax burden...
TxST Look up Strawman and then come back and name ANYONE. on here on in congress or anywhere who espoused what you suggested some have espoused. You can't make up sometying like that simply because it gives you ammunition for an outraged reply.
Perhaps, Deez, but more likely it indicates that a policy decision was made in Texas, but not in most of the other states, and that no Constitutional chalenge was made over the 10 or so years in question. suddenly, Obama outrage, and the usual hyperbole about Obama "shredding the constitution".
TxStHorn, My opposition to the mandate is totally based on two principles. First, I think it does need to make an exception for religious institutions to avoid a church-state problem. I disagree with Catholics on the issue of contraception. I also think many Catholics are ridiculous and hypocritical for being too religious to use birth control but not too religious to have premarital sex. However, it's not the government's place to dictate that they do something that is against their basic principles. (I don't like that Muslims teach their people that they get to sexually abuse 72 virgins in heaven if they die while in the course of killing Christians and Jews, but I wouldn't want a federal mandate stopping them.) Second, it's a states' rights issue. As you're well aware, the regulation of insurance (along with tort liability, criminal law, and public education) has long been a matter of state concern and power, so in that sense I would hold a federal mandate to a greater degree of scrutiny than a state mandate. (However, I would be just as critical of a mandate coming from a Republican president as one coming from a Democratic president. Bush's No Child Left Behind was just as offensive, yet most Republicans gave it a pass.) I agree with the points you make, but those go to the merits of using birth control more than they go to the appropriateness of a federal mandate.
I understand the view that on this issue the fed gov't has gone too far. But for me, this is a way to protect women, and if states, religious organizations or insurance companies won't, then the fed gov't needs to step in.
"First, states mandating laws or in this case insurance coverage may or may not contradict each state's constitution. The federal government does. " Meaningless distinction in the Church-State issue. States cannot violate the 1st amendment, so if such a requirement is a violation now, it was then too. So I guess that leaves the argument that it wasn't noticed in the states where it was in place. I suspect that really another way of answering my original question. It wasn't Obama, so it wasn't a big deal. Contrast the utter outrage with "nobody noticed". All politics is local, and today all politics is national. Some teacher tells some parents to buy some Mcnuggets, and it is a national outrage. Multiple states require contraception coverage pre-Obama and nobody notices. I'm buying the sincerity of the enumerated powers arguments. I'm not buying the newfound "war on religion" bul lshit.
There are eight states that do not offer a religious exemption for providing contraception through health care plans. However,
