contraception as part of medical insurance

[Aplomb]

I've already got one for you, Honorable Judge Alito

New York Courts Won’t Allow Catholics Freedom of Religion on Abortion-Causing Birth Control


By Hilary white
NEW YORK, January 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A New York state law requiring employers to pay for contraception as part of medical insurance packages, has been upheld in a 3-2 decision. Nearly a dozen groups, including Catholic Charities of the Albany Diocese attempted to gain a temporary injunction against the law which they said violates their freedom of religion. The case will likely now go to a higher court for appeal.
The Women's Health and Wellness Act passed in June 2002 and has not been enacted pending the outcome of the legal challenge. Richard E. Barnes, executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, objected to the arguments of “family planning” groups that contraception must be held in the same category as mammograms and cervical cancer checkups, which the law also includes.
"This case is not about the right to contraception," said Barnes. "We have never challenged employees' right to use contraception. We have simply maintained that our religious beliefs prevent us from paying for something we teach is sinful."
Read previous LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03010807.html

[Aplomb]

HIGH COURT TEST

The majority found no inconsistency between the law at issue and the seminal U.S. Supreme Court test for establishment clause claims, Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 US 602 (1971). Under Lemon, to survive an establishment clause attack a statute must have a secular purpose; its primary effect must be one that neither hinders nor advances religion, and it must not foster an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

"Plaintiffs generally contend -- and the dissent agrees -- that the exemption favors religious worship over religious-based ministry, and that it discriminates between religious institutions that are devoted solely to ecclesiastical purposes and religious institutions whose ministries are part of the institution," Mercure wrote. "While plaintiffs' objection is understandable, they do not explain how this distinction advances or inhibits religion within the meaning of Lemon's second prong."

The majority similarly dismissed claims that the statute discriminates between religious denominations and that it violates the church autonomy doctrine, which generally holds that civil authorities must defer to ecclesiastical leaders on issues such as the governance of their church.

However, the majority warned that the state could find itself on thin constitutional ice if it attempted to differentiate between what exactly constitutes an inculcation of religious values, and therefore qualifies for the exemption, and what does not. But that was not the case here, the majority said.

DISSENTERS' POSITION

Presiding Cardona and Justice Edward O. Spain disagreed. They said the state has already made an inappropriate and unconstitutional determination that some religious-sponsored activities, such as running hospitals, are secular.

"We fail to see where the record establishes that an organization is automatically secular and not religious in nature if it employs or serves persons of different faiths or engages in the provision of charitable or social services," Cardona wrote. "Nor do we see that making such assumptions and engaging in the formulation of 'religious tests' is an appropriate area of inquiry for the Legislature or the courts."

The dissenters would have shot down the law under the state Constitution's free exercise clause and the state and federal free speech provisions.

"Simply stated, we have great difficulty with a statutory scheme which explicitly dissects the laudable activities of a given religious organization into two unequal parts, i.e., secular and ecclesiastical, and affords only the ecclesiastical portion an exemption from mandated conduct which the entire organization deems objectionable," Cardona wrote.

Further, Cardona and Spain sympathized with the plaintiffs' argument that financial support for contraception, as mandated by the law, could be viewed publicly as an endorsement of a practice to which it is opposed.

"It is the fact that their opposition is so public and widespread which makes the Catholic plaintiffs, in particular, more susceptible to charges of hypocrisy, especially since, as has been emphasized, these plaintiffs could avoid supporting contraceptive use by choosing not to provide any prescription coverage to their employees," Cardona wrote.

APPEAL PLANNED

In a statement, the New York State Catholic Conference made clear that it would appeal.

"[O]ur religious beliefs prevent us from paying for something we teach is sinful," Richard E. Barnes, executive director of the conference, said in a statement. "We believe that advocates of this legislation have their sights set on mandating coverage for abortion, in an attempt to destroy the Church's network of social services, hospitals, nursing homes and schools."

JoAnn M. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Family Planning Advocates, said the case has nothing to do with abortion, noting that contraception helps prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions.

"This bill was about contraceptive coverage from the beginning, middle and end," Ms. Smith said. "It was about making sure that the discrimination women faced in receiving basic health care was ended in New York state ... The fact that the court recognized as important the state interest in gender equality and access to health care is tremendously important and I was thrilled

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?i...3&rss=newswire

Here is the brief:

Description: Amici urge the Court to affirm the lower court's holding that the Women's Health and Wellness Act does not violate the United States or New York constitutions. The Act is a comprehensive antidiscrimination and public health statute that requires insurance plans to cover women's preventive health needs equitably. Among its other requirements, which include mandating coverage for mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, and osteoporosis tests, WHWA requires insurance plans that include prescription drug benefits to cover contraceptive drugs and devices.

http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverigh...l20060112.html

[ExplodedMind]

Aplomb: They had to use the word "seminal" in that piece? I'm not touching any of this with a ten-foot you-know-what.

EM

[Aplomb]

Hi EM. I get it. lol

Let me add the definition:

sem·i·nal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sm-nl)
adj.

1. Of, relating to, containing, or conveying semen or seed.
2. Of, relating to, or having the power to originate; creative.
3. Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory.

---

[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin sminlis, from smen, smin-, seed. See semen.]

---

semi·nal·ly adv.

[Aplomb]

In other words, if you're a church, you're fine. If you're a parachurch ministry, you almost certainly don't qualify. It's not terribly surprising, then, that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany (qualifies), which runs Catholic Charities (doesn't qualify), fought the law and sued over it when it was implemented. Perhaps more surprising is that the Catholics were joined by Baptist churches that don't oppose artificial contraception. They're concerned that the law lays the groundwork for requiring religious organizations to pay for abortion.
Yesterday, a New York appeals court ruled 3-2 in favor of the law, and against the religious organizations. The law indeed burdens the churches' right to the free exercise of religion, the court said, but giving them an exemption "may ultimately cause a greater number of women employed by nonexempt religious organizations to be without adequate health coverage."
The Christian groups had argued that funding artificial contraception would also create the impression that they supported such contraception. The court told them, in essence, that they should just preach louder to counter such impression. When words conflict with actions, the court suggested, words win out. (Parishioners, the court confidently said, would see the funding as "compliance under protest.")
snip
Not that the debate is limited to New York. California went through this debate in 2004, with Catholic Charities eventually losing there, too. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal; let's hope that the justices recognize a growing constitutional debate when they see it and hear this case.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/102/53.0.html

[Aplomb]

There have been several times that upon bringing a prescription to a pharmacist, I have consulted with the pharmacist and accepted what was stated about a drug over what the doctor had said to me about it when there was a difference of position over it. HCD Research Inc. has surveyed 859 American pharmacists on plan B which has published this last month:

Pharmacists Believe They Should Have Authority to Refuse Emergency Contraception Prescriptions


FLEMINGTON, NJ, December 6, 2005 -- A new national survey of 859 American pharmacists revealed that a clear majority of pharmacists believe that they should have the authority to refuse to fill prescriptions for emergency contraception.
The national survey was conducted by HCD Research during December 3-4, to obtain the views of pharmacists in response to recent media reports that four pharmacists were suspended by the Walgreen Co. in Illinois for refusing to fill emergency contraception prescriptions.
Among the findings:

• 69% of the pharmacists indicated that pharmacists should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for emergency contraception such as the morning after pill.
• While 39% of pharmacists indicated that state laws should not require them to fill certain prescriptions, a significantly smaller percentage of pharmacists (23%) believe that the patient’s rights should prevail if a legal drug is prescribed by a doctor.
• 37% of pharmacists feel that although they should have the right to refuse, they should also be required to refer patients to another pharmacist who will fill the prescription.
• 63% of pharmacists do not think that Walgreen should have put the four pharmacists on unpaid leave for refusing to fill the emergency contraception prescriptions, and only 29% felt that Walgreen was justified in its action.

"While a vast majority of pharmacists believe that they should have the authority to refuse filling prescriptions for the morning after pill, they are split regarding whether they should be required to refer consumers to a pharmacist who will fill the prescription,” commented Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research.
"In a physicians’ poll that we conducted in July, an overwhelming majority of physicians supported the requirement that pharmacists fill prescriptions for the morning after pill,” continued Kessler. “In that poll, we did not give them the option of indicating whether it was acceptable for pharmacists to choose not to fill the prescription and refer the patient to another pharmacist. However, with 79% of physicians indicating that pharmacists should be required to fill the prescription, it is clear that there is a very strong consensus.”
To view detailed results for the pharmacists’ poll, please go to: http://publish.hcdhealth.com/C0007/
Editors/Reporters: For more information on the poll, or to speak with Glenn Kessler, co-founder and managing partner, HCD Research, please contact Vince McGourty, M&M Communications, Inc., at (908) 638-5555 or (vinmcg@earthlink.net).
HCD Research is a marketing and communications research company headquartered in Flemington, NJ. The company's services include traditional and web-based marketing and communications research. HCD Research is also the developer of hcdhealth.com, a web site for health care professionals. For additional information on HCD Research, access the company’s web site at www.hcdi.net or call HCD Research at 908-788-9393.

http://hcdi.net/News/PressRelease.cfm?ID=103

Some pharmacists are also refusing to fill contraceptives. But aren't contraceptives used to prevent pregnancy???

[Aplomb]

Lawsuits are the current happening but I will get to that later. I believe it is more important to post this today about oral contraceptives...

The Pill

According to FDA information, the typical pregnancy rate for women using the pill is 5 percent. This means that of every 100 women using the pill, 5 will be pregnant within 12 months. About 10.4 million American women use the pill; thus there are more than 500,000 pregnancies per year among these pill users. The 1999 Physicians Desk Reference reads: "Progestin-only oral contraceptives prevent conception by suppressing ovulation in approximately half of users, thickening the cervical mucus to inhibit sperm penetration, lowering the midcycle LH and FSH peaks, slowing the movement of the ovum through the fallopian tubes, and altering the endometrium" (p. 2201). "Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)" (p.713). Both pills (progestin-only and combination) act to prevent the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). However, because the hormone level in pills has been lowered in recent years due to serious physical complications, women can and do experience occasional breakthrough ovulation - meaning that an egg is released from the ovary and is available to be fertilized by the sperm. Both types of pills also cause the cervical mucus to thicken, making it difficult for the sperm to reach the egg. It is possible, though, for the sperm to occasionally break through the mucus and to fertilize the egg. Both types of pills change the lining of the uterus (endometrium), as you read above. If fertilization has occurred (i.e., if the sperm and the egg have joined forming a union that denotes the beginning of a new human being), the Pill, by altering the lining of the uterus, may prevent the 5-10 day-old human to attach to the lining of the uterus (implantation), where it would receive the nourishment needed to grow. If attachment does not occur, then this young human is expelled from the body during menstruation. This process is known as a chemical abortion and is why the Pill may be referred to as an abortifacient contraceptive. If we must err, let us err on the side of life... Some women may be taking the Pill for various reasons (ovarian cysts, heavy periods, etc.) to relieve medical problems. The Pill may relieve symptoms; but there are natural methods of relieving those same symptoms and of curing the root problem that are just as effective and much safer. The side effects of taking the pill, especially for long term users are, but are not limited to, acne, weight gain, increased risk of breast and cervical cancer, lowered immunity to STDs, and the possibility of sterility later in life. "Fertility problems are only the tip of the iceberg for many women...'In 1960, when the pill was first invented, the incidence of breast cancer was one in 25 women; today it is one in eight women,'" says Kathy Raviele, M.D., an Atlanta physician. A study published last fall in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) supports Raviele's supposition that there is a definite link between pill use and breast cancer. [see JAMA, 11 October 2000, vol.284, pp.1791-1798, family history risk of breast cancer with oral contraceptives] And according to the Physician's Desk Reference, women who took the pill as teenagers are at higher risk of developing breast cancer when in their 30s than women in the population as a whole." [Family Resources Center News, Jan/Feb 02] For more information about the metabolic action of The Pill, visit www.ccli.org

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/ind...sk=view&id=188 (bolded in original)

And there's more...

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES AND THE RISK OF CANCER: DOCTORS' FEDERATION ECHOES WARNINGS OF WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION An int’l medical federation has echoed a warning by the World
Health Organization about the increased risk of cancer linked to oral contraceptives. More than 50 national associations, representing 30,000 doctors worldwide, make up FIAMC (the group's French acronym).
* * *
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Lyon-based cancer research agency of the World Health Organization, in its press release of 29 July 2005, announced the publication of a monograph on the possible carcinogenicity [of] combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy, based on the conclusions of an international ad hoc working group of 21 scientists from 8 countries. Previously, combined oral contraceptives had been determined to be
carcinogenic to humans, but only primary liver cancer was specifically implicated. The
Working Group, after a thorough review of the published scientific evidence, concluded that combined oral contraceptives alter the risk of several common cancers in women.
Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives were classified in the Group 1 of carcinogenic agents. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.
These conclusions are of enormous public health importance, since it is estimated that worldwide, more than 100 million women -- about 10% of all women of reproductive age -- currently use combined hormonal contraceptives. In addition, there has been widespread use of hormonal menopausal therapy: approximately 20 million women in developed countries.
For all these women, the message is that the use of oral contraceptives increases the risk of breast, cervix and liver cancer. On the contrary, the risks of endometrial and ovarian cancer are decreased in women who used combined oral contraceptives.
Regarding combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy, WHO warns that it increases the risk of breast cancer and endometrial cancer (at least when progestogens are taken fewer than 10 days per month) and that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that hormonal therapy has a protective effect at any cancer site. The WHO experts call to a rigorous analysis to demonstrate what can be, at the end, the overall net public health outcome of the use of oral contraceptives. In addition, each woman who uses these products is now invited by WHO to discuss the overall risks and benefits with her doctor, taking into consideration her personal circumstances and family history of cancer and other diseases.
FIAMC invites all health care providers to attentively consider the results of the WHO study... and encourages ... doctors to spread the methods for natural family planning also in Western affluent societies. [Gian Luigi Gigli, MD President ZE05090723; ROME, 7Sept05; http://www.zenit.org/; The World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations ]
IS PLAN B 'UNSAFE'? The FDA [Food/Drug Administration] decision to defer a ruling to allow over-the-counter (OTC) sales of the emergency contraception drug Plan B has generated debate over the agency's independence from political pressure. But opponents of broader access to the so-called morning-after pill often cite safety issues as a primary concern. They say there is no research in adolescents showing safety of the treatment, which consists of high doses of the hormone progestin. Opponents also note use of the pills leads to higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STDs/STIs) and promiscuous behavior, which can carry its own dangers. A Swedish study published in 2002 reported that STIs [specifically Chlamydia, rose 30%] among adolescents who had OTC access to emergency contraception and other forms of contraception [Chlamydia can lead to PID and sterility].
Many groups oppose OTC status including American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, and Concerned Women for America, a public policy organization. Since birth control pills, which contain lower doses of progestin, are available only by prescription, said Wendy Wright [senior policy dir, Concerned Women for America] "it's crazy that we're even discussing that the high dose of the drug be available without a prescription"…
What has stalled FDA approval of the drug for over-the-counter (OTC) sale is controversy over whether Plan B should be sold without a prescription to those ages 16 and under. Plan B was approved by the FDA in 1999 as a prescription-only medication… Plan B contains a high dose of a synthetic form of progestin, which has been used in birth control pills for more than three decades -- both in progestin-only formulas and in combination with estrogen, another female hormone. (The combination pill, especially in formulations stronger than those currently on the market, is associated with increased risks of nausea, vomiting and blood clots in the legs and lungs. The combination pills may also increase the risk of breast cancer, liver tumors and endometrial cancer. It is not known if progestin-only contraceptives increase risk for those conditions.) Progestin works by preventing the release of an egg from an ovary, and it may also "prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization)," according to an FDA statement listing common questions and answers about Plan B. If fertilization occurs, Plan B "may prevent a fertilized egg [sic] from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B," the drug will not prevent pregnancy. [Preventing implantation of the 100-cell 'blastocyst' embryo would cause it to be expelled from the mother's body - an early abortion.]
Wright said her group opposes OTC emergency contraception because the pill would have side effects similar to those found in birth control pills.
"Any of the complications you can have [with birth control pills], you obviously could have with" Plan B, Wright said. She cites the need for a doctor to evaluate a woman's health and medical history before writing a prescription. Women should not take Plan B if they have undiagnosed, unusual vaginal bleeding or a sensitivity to progestin. Traditional progestin-only birth control pills increase risk for tubal pregnancies -- when a fertilized egg implants outside the uterus, and the fetus and placenta start to form there, most often inside of a fallopian tube. It is not known if Plan B increases this risk, according to the drug's label, which adds that women who experience severe abdominal pains should see a doctor immediately because that can be a warning sign of tubal pregnancies. Plan B's label advises that women may experience heavier or lighter bleeding than normal soon after taking it. After taking the drug, 87 percent of women get their next period within a week of when it was expected, the label states. Birth control pills are intended for extended use, while Plan B is meant for one-time or episodic use. [Sep. 12, 2005 The Washington Post, J. Payne]

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/831/74/

[Aplomb]

BTW I just sent this email to Physicians For Life:

Greetings!

I was investigating some things concerning contraception and read something from your site on wikipedia. Considering the view of Physicians For Life on the definition of pregnancy, I want to call to your attention that Wikipedia has not properly quoted from your site. It is an exact quote, but it is used to show that you are in agreement with implantation being the point at which a woman is pregnant.
>>
Following, there have likewise been some discrepancies regarding the very term "conception". In a statement by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists (AAPLOG), regarding the controversial morning-after pill, AAPLOG claims:
>>
"[Again,] one must be careful of the terminology. Many now speak of "conception" as that moment when the human blastocyst, the early ball of approximately 100 cells, implants in the mother’s uterus (womb). The time from actual fertilization (sperm and egg unite in the Fallopian Tube) until implantation, a period of about 7-10 days, is ignored, even though no genetic change occurs in the cells during this time period. Many family planning specialists who have supported the terminology change can thus rationalize that the destruction of the human embryo between fertilization and implantation should be labeled "contraception," rather than "early abortion." [9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception
>>
It's near the bottom of the page. Please make them correct that. What clever deceitfulness, huh?
>>
On behalf of the voiceless,
>>
Theresa

[Aplomb]

Contraceptive Coverage in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program
August, 2003
In 1998, Congress voted to ensure that all Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) participants have access to comprehensive contraceptive coverage in the FY 1999 Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Bill. Previously, FEHBP did not provide such coverage for contraception, despite its inclusion of coverage for other prescription drugs and devices. Language included in the appropriations bill ensures that federal employees participating in FEHBP have insurance coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related services. Today, oral contraceptives, diaphragms, Norplant, Depo Provera, cervical caps, emergency contraception, IUDs, and other methods are all covered under the program.

http://www.crlp.org/pub_fac_ccfedemploy.html

The point here is that medical coverage from your employer is to cover all forms of contraception and contraception devices just as you see in that list for federal employees. That is the law in at least 20 states because private employee prescription plans that don't provide such coverage for contraception are considered to discriminate against women.

The 20 states that require private-sector insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Georgia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Washington.

snip

Justice Janice Rogers Brown was the lone dissenting judge. Brown wrote that the Legislature's definition of a "religious employer" is too limiting if it excludes faith-based nonprofit groups like Catholic Charities.

"Here we are dealing with an intentional, purposeful intrusion into a religious organization's expression of its religious tenets and sense of mission," Brown wrote. "The government is not accidentally or incidentally interfering with religious practice; it is doing so willfully by making a judgment about what is or is not a religion."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112973,00.html