I don't understand the compromise. Basically, Catholic Institution can tell its female employees "Although we are providing you with insurance, we do not cover contraception," but then the exact same insurance *will* provide contraception? How is it not covered, then?

Can someone re-word it for me? Because I honestly don't understand it.

It just puts the costs onto the insurance company, rather than the employer?

ION, I bought a tiny suitcase the other weekend, and it is just barely big enough for a wintertime long weekend trip, which actually makes it perfect, I think -- it will be great for a work overnight, which is half of what I was thinking about. But I can only bring the shoes I'm wearing today.

I don't understand the compromise. Basically, Catholic Institution can tell its female employees "Although we are providing you with insurance, we do not cover contraception," but then the exact same insurance *will* provide contraception? How is it not covered, then?

I'm not sure I understand it either. Are they saying that if Catholic Institution refuses to pay for contraception coverage as part of a health insurance plan, that the insurer must offer it to the employees free of charge anyway? So basically everyone still gets the same contraception-inclusive insurance plan, but Catholic Institution gets to say "We don't want to pay for this specific part of it"?

I think part of what's confusing me is the idea that an employer can pick and choose which parts of an insurance plan they will pay for. I always thought that insurers offered specific plans, which employers then bought, in their entirety, for their employees. In other words, I thought an employer could say, "We'd like to offer our employees your Plans A, B, and C." I didn't think they could say "We want to offer our employees Plan A except for the birth control, Plan B except for the mental health coverage, and Plan C except for the vision coverage."

I assume the insurance company's "plan with bc" will be the same cost as the plan w/o. I mean, I can't see them playing it any other way.

Would Catholic hospitals and such possible say "Fuck you then, we won't offer insurance"? I mean, that'd cause a lot of employees to up and quit, but...

The Archdiocese of Cincinnati flat-out said that if they were required to offer insurance that covers birth control, then they *would* stop providing insurance at all, to any of their employees.

Way to be pro-life.

Would Catholic hospitals and such possible say "Fuck you then, we won't offer insurance"? I mean, that'd cause a lot of employees to up and quit, but...

They haven't so far. But they do appear ready to jump off that cliff, at least at the upper eschelons.

Way to be pro-life.

Yeah, I have to admit I'm kind of boggled at the Catholic Church, the place that coined syncretism and adopted the Celtic goddess Brigid as a Saint, insisting on this kind of ideological purity.

And yet then we have the Inquisition--which was really more about power and politics than about ideology, anyway.

It's not about ideology, it's about power.

Obama has started a war on Christians! Which Santorum says will end up with Christians being guillotined!

If he wins the election and turns this country into a fundie theocracy, I'm going to be one of the first ones in line yelling "Liberté, égalité, fraternité!" and looking around for a whetstone.

Way to be pro-life.

Some conservative Christian group said that pro-life has nothing to do with quality of life. They were explaining why they opposed new rules to reduce the amount of mercury that people are exposed to (to, you know, reduce birth-defects and what-not).

So now we know.

Would Catholic hospitals and such possible say "Fuck you then, we won't offer insurance"? I mean, that'd cause a lot of employees to up and quit, but...

I suspect that's the real endgame, and all the birth control and religious freedom stuff is a way to get people all riled up about it. The real intent is to throw roadblocks up against (closer to) universal healthcare on the whole, even though most of those institutions are already offering insurance, and a lot of their employees would quit. Culture war thing, and political football, not actual thought-through consequences.

He cited the problem that would create for “good Catholic business people who can’t in good conscience cooperate with this.”

I'd like him to find 10 to come forward and say this in front of their employees.

Would Catholic hospitals and such possible say "Fuck you then, we won't offer insurance"?

It seems likely enough, considering that Catholic charities have decided to close orphanages and stop doing adoption services, something the Catholic church has been doing in some form for more than 1,000 years, rather than have anything to do with adoptions by gay couples.