HHS Rule Requires Abortion Premium

Story

HHS Rule Requires Abortion Premium

Special Report - March 20, 2012
Last week, the Obama Administration continued with its plan to force insurance coverage for contraception, abortifacients and sterilization with two rule announcements from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services related to the implementation of the new federal healthcare law. Late Friday afternoon, HHS released an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preventive services policy,” which details the administration’s “draft proposals to implement” its policy requiring that contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations be available at no cost through health insurance plans and companies nationwide with very few exceptions. The amended rule, which was announced by the Administration in February, requires insurance companies (third parties) to offer the objectionable services free-of-charge to employees of religious organizations. That change does not satisfy complaints from religious leaders that the new requirement violates the First Amendment rights of organizations and individuals who object to contraception, abortifacients, and sterilizations on moral and religious grounds. Objectors of the rule argue that the change will result in higher premiums across the board to cover the “free” services offered by insurance companies.

The Advance Notice announcement on March 16 also included “a final rule governing student health plans.” That rule requires student health plans to follow the same guidelines found objectionable by religious groups that require the inclusion of contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization coverage without a copay, although, the announcement did note “that religious colleges and universities” that do not wish to “pay, arrange or refer for contraceptive coverage for their employees, … will not have to do so for their students who will get such coverage directly and separately from their insurer.” That accommodation is the same one proposed in February to which religious leaders continue to object as an “accounting gimmick.”

As part of the advance notice regarding women’s free preventive services, there will be a 90-day public comment period. Comments may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov or by mail (see page 3 of the rule for instructions).

In a press release, Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund expressed the sentiments of many in the prolife community. “We do not need any more rule making. We do not need any more comment periods. We already settled this with that one original rule: The First Amendment.” The Becket Fund has filed lawsuits on behalf of several religious employers challenging the rule.

Also last week, pro-life Americans witnessed their fears of federal funding for abortions realized in HHS’ finalized rules related to the establishment of state health care exchanges under the new federal healthcare law. The final rule, which was issued in a 644-page HHS commentary on March 12, lays out guidelines for states to establish and administer government-operated health insurance markets by January 1, 2014. Several components of the rule concern pro-life leaders, including:

According to a March 15 analysis by Lifenews.com, health plans that cover abortions are forbidden from “calling attention to that fact in … advertising or explanatory materials. The disclosure of abortion coverage can be provided ‘only as part of the summary of benefits and coverage explanation, at the time of enrollment.’”
Lifenews.com reports that individuals enrolled in a health plan that includes abortion coverage will be required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “to pay a defined monthly charge for the abortion coverage,” regardless of whether the individual objects morally to including abortion coverage or is not of childbearing age. The rule requires that the surcharge cannot be “less than one dollar per enrollee, per month,” but does not cap the allowed surcharge.
The rule does not include any reason or gestational age limitations on the abortions covered.
Additionally, Lifenews.com reported that “federal subsidies for tens of millions of American families whose household income is 400 percent or less of the federal poverty level ($92,000 for a family of four) … can be used to purchase health plans that cover all abortions.”

The rule does state that a state may enact a law to “opt out” of the requirement that health plans participating in the state’s exchange must cover abortion. According to Lifenews.com, 15 states have already enacted such opt out laws. However, a state’s decision to opt out of the requirement at the state level does not impact the federal decision to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize abortion coverage for Americans in states that continue to allow the inclusion of abortion coverage in exchange plans.

Additionally, the rule states, “Nothing in the Affordable Care Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.”

Related resources:
Majority Oppose Contraceptive Mandate - March 16, 2012
Seven States Challenge Contraceptive Mandate - February 27, 2012
Insurance "Accommodation" Unsatisfactory - February 15, 2012
Religious Leaders Oppose Mandate - January 31, 2012
Feds Keep Contraceptive Mandate - January 23, 2012
Evangelical College Joins Contraceptive Challenge - December 29, 2011
College Challenges Contraceptive Mandate - November 14, 2011
Administration Requires Free Contraception- August 4, 2011
Becket Fund Defends Belmont Abbey - October 12, 2009
Federal Agency Mandates Abortion Coverage - August 17, 2009