The fines begin for Obamacare abortifacient mandate

The $100 per day, per employee, fines have gone into effect for employers that refuse to provide insurance that includes free contraception and abortion-causing drugs.

Churches are exempt, and non-profit religious organizations were granted a one-year reprieve, but companies owned by pro-life individuals must either comply or start paying the fines.

Meanwhile, court cases have ruled all over the map on this issue.  For where things stand now, see   Courts Issue Contradictory Rulings as Contracepti… | Christianity Today.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Paul Reed

    I remember when the issue was babies dying, and not the idea that we have to pay for something that we don’t want.

  • Booklover

    Where is the outrage over this?

  • https://infanttheology.wordpress.com Nathan

    Is there little outrage over this because employers can also provide monies for their employees to pick their own health insurance plans (my wife’s workplace is doing this)? In which case, I wonder how many insurance plans there are that don’t cover theses “services”.

    Also – regarding Concordia Health Plan – does anyone know who they all work with. Here in MN., I am on the plan and they work with Blue Cross Blue Shield, and I don’t think this group for example, refuses to cover these services.

    I think all of this “working together” might be part of the reason there is so little outrage. People, like myself, are confused.

    Which is the way to get things done I guess. Somehow, though it all, a bunch of people have started paying for abortions through their health care plans. Hyde ammendment violation avoided, but rendered superfulous nonetheless.

    +Nathan

  • Norman Teigen

    Norman to Veith: To label this issue as the Obamacare Abortifacient Mandate is to misrepresent the case. You only serve to inflame the groundlings when you do this. As an important shaper of public opinion you need to be more careful in your use of language. This has been going on for a long time and you really need to change your ways.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Cruel and unusual punishment?

    I mean, seriously, $100/day. That is more than the daily cost of insurance. It is maliciously punitive. It certainly is not usual. Heck Wall Street companies are routinely assessed fines for fraud or cheating the public that literally amount to a fraction of a percent of their profits, a mere cost of doing business and hardly a deterrent. This fine is excessively punitive given that it punishes an act that doesn’t injure anyone. It is a much higher fine than is assess for other labor law violations. It is way out of line. No contraceptive or abortion drug costs that even 1/100th so much.

  • Abby

    @4 Why do you keep saying this does not exist?

  • DonS

    Norman @ 4: “Inflame the groundlings”? How is Dr. Veith is misrepresenting things? Who are the “groundlings”?

    Try substantive argument, for a change.

  • fjsteve

    Steve to Norman: If you’re going to criticize Dr. Veith for making inflammatory statements you might want to stop the practice yourself. You can do that by not using pejoratives to describe readers of his blog. You can also do that by not making blanket claims without explaining yourself.

  • Abby

    @2 “Where is the outrage over this?” I have it. I sure wish there was something I could do. I only have one vote. I use it as best as I can. “Be angry and sin not.” Anger has a place.

  • Abby

  • DonS

    Nathan @ 3: Dropping healthcare coverage for your employees, entirely, is a tough alternative to avoid this massive governmental intrusion. Starting in 2014, employers will be fined for not providing coverage, if they exceed 49 employees. Dropping coverage also places them at a competitive disadvantage. Employees on their own can’t obtain the type of coverage available through employers’ group plans, and if you give them money to pay for coverage instead of coverage, that money is taxable, whereas providing health coverage is a tax-free benefit.

    There is plenty of outrage over this issue, as witnessed by the number of suits ongoing to try to stop the mandates. Of course, the media isn’t providing very comprehensive news coverage, because it is not an issue most press people are in sympathy with.

  • Abby

    “You only serve to inflame the groundlings” . . .

    I’ll accept that title.

  • helen

    People find it easier to argue a theory than to practice it.

    One of the reasons objections are muted is that when it gets down to their own “late 30′s” baby and the OB-GYN says, “This one worked, you have the baby you wanted; what do you want to do with the dozen embryos still on ice?” Christian people as well as others will agree to “disposal”.
    Or, if it worked, but the prediction is Downes Syndrome, Christian people may also ‘eliminate’ that one, in hope of a “more perfect” baby.

    Also, there is very mixed legal action in the case of dedicated Christian employers (lay) who do not want to fund recreational sex at their and other employees’ expense. Our church leaders may think the problem is solved if Concordia Plan is exempt, but the laity get the impression that they are behaving just like Congress: “one law for us, another for the rest of you.”

    Finally, these “medications” up to and including late term abortions are already in many insurance plans, including those of most religious organizations, e.g., elca. (Have been, for a long time, with co-pays.)

    Why do these relatively cheap pills now have to be “free”!?
    That’s the part that galls those who have large pharmacy bills for “necessary to life” medications.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    Why do these relatively cheap pills now have to be “free”!?

    Because higher performing people are rapidly birth controlling themselves out of existence and politicians want lower performing people to do the same.

  • Abby

    @14 Careful, you’ll be called a “groundling” :)

  • Daniel Gorman

    Gene Veith: “Churches are exempt, and non-profit religious organizations were granted a one-year reprieve, but companies owned by pro-life individuals must either comply or start paying the fines.”

    Churches are free to omit or provide abortion drugs. Private companies which compete with church-related businesses (e.g., hospitals, colleges, publishing houses, etc.) are locked into an abortion-providing business model.

    Churches are like the first estate in pre-revolutionary France. They are exempt from laws that everyone else must obey.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X