Idaho lawmaker proposes state ban on requiring coverage of contraception, morning-after pills, vasectomies

Rep. Carlos Bilbao, R-Emmett, took up the issue that consumed Washington, D.C., last week -- proposing an Idaho law to prohibit requiring insurance policies to cover contraception, sterilization and "abortifacients," or abortion-inducing drugs.

Bilbao presented his House Bill 530 to the House Health & Welfare Committee Thursday, saying he was responding to the Obama administration's controversial policy regarding contraception services.

"It is an attack on my rights of conscience," said Bilbao, a Catholic. "It is an affront to my religious freedoms...It is not right that we have to bow down and take something that is against our moral beliefs."

The measure was opposed by Hannah Brass, legislative director of Planned Parenthood of Idaho.

Brass said the measure discriminates against women because only they use contraceptives and jeopardizes their health because many women use pills for other health reasons.

"We believe that all women, regardless of where they work, should have access to preventive care," Brass said, adding that 90 percent of American women use birth control medication during their lifetimes.

House Minority Leader John Rusche, D-Lewiston, a physician, also raised the question of other therapeutic uses of contraceptives and sterilization. Bilbao said he wasn't prepared to reply.

The committee did not act on the bill Thursday because the meeting agenda was not properly posted on the Legislature's website, said Chairwoman Janice McGeachin, R-Idaho Falls. Additional testimony will be taken Monday, she said, before the committee votes.

Bilbao also presented a non-binding joint memorial to Congress House Joint Memorial 10 which covered similar ground with a conscience exception for health insurance and medical coverage.

HJM 10 urges Congress to pass legislation that would allow insurers, purchasers and other stakeholders with religious or moral objections to specific items or services to decline to provide or obtain coverage of such items or services, or allow health care providers with such objections to decline to provide them.

Brass and the ACLU of Idaho's Monica Hopkins both opposed HJM 10. Hopkins said the ACLU will testify Monday against HB 530.

1329435535 Idaho lawmaker proposes state ban on requiring coverage of contraception, morning-after pills, vasectomies Idaho Statesman Copyright 2014 Idaho Statesman . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

shut up

Shut up Bilbao.

If contraception is against your lack of reasonable thought, then DONT use it.

THAT has nothing to do with and it does not contradict an insurance company providing it within coverage for those who do WANT to use it.

A Catholic legislator would be much better to spend time trying to figure out how a family of EIGHT should pay more for the drain they put on your public education system and the indirect effect they cause on the problems of the world such as poverty, hunger, and 'global warming'.

Overpopulation is our #1 problem.
Catholics, Mormons, and ignorant people are the leaders of that problem.

total agreement, p2

Couldn't have made a better argument myself. I get sooo tired of the legislature wasting their time & our tax $ on "feel good PR" stuff every year. Get to the real important items that will make you work for your wages, Bilbao.

I would assume that

I would assume that insurance companies would love to cover contraceptives. Think about it: they get to rake in the huge premiums while the people they insure have access to birth control. Between numerous doctor visits before the child is born, possible extended hospital stays and even more doctor visits afterwards, child birth costs insurance companies lots of money.

Insurance companies would

Insurance companies would like to get paid to cover contraceptives, tubal ligations, abortifacients, etc. The Obama administration says they must provide these services "for free" which, of course, means everybody's health insurance premiums will increase to offset the cost to insurance companies. Catholic institutions that self-insure are the biggest losers because they are being forced to pay for services that violate their conscience.

Did you even read the blog post?

It does not say insurance companies CANNOT cover birth control, just that they won't be REQUIRED to. The rest of your rant after that is just silly.

the bill

I read the proposed bill.

That says:
All policies, contracts, plans or certificates of disability insurance delivered, issued for delivery or renewed in this state shall not be required to include coverage...

***
So the state would be saying
"it's okay for an insurance company to opt out of this important part of medical coverage." - simply because the idea of contraception does not align with someone's religous belief.

***
How about this
All policies will not be required to cover pre-existing condition.
all policies will not be required to cover cancer.
All policies will not be required to pay for squat.

So you have a problem with

the separation of State and Church?

Anti-catholic myopia, pimp?

The drain on public education by large families is offset by the taxes the children will pay as adults. The fundamental problem causing the insolvency of Social Security and Medicare is that there are not enough young workers to satisfy the government's guarantee made to senior citizens. It's not going to get any better unless the next generation embraces marriage and family values instead of either avoiding pregnancy or aborting their offspring. The only other solution is to significantly increase immigration, which is what Europe has tried to do resulting in some serious ethnic and religious conflicts, or we could just renege on caring for the elderly.

You also ignore the fact that many Catholic parents send their children to Catholic schools and yet pay taxes for your kids to attend public schools. Nothing like knocking people who are doing you a favor on ever so many fronts.

why wont' it go?

This is a CLASSIC response:
"drain on public education by large families is offset by the taxes the children will pay as adults"

Cost NOW- pay later.
How's that working for us?

That's putting the cart in front of the horse and wondering why the cart is not going anywhere.

***
Tell all this to the Chinese.

***
It's not anti-Catholic as much as it is anti-over-population.

It's pretty easy to do the math.
Just extend it beyond your nose (your lifetime).

Pimp, you got a solution for

Pimp, you got a solution for the $100 trillion in entitlement liabilities the U.S. is facing? This math is beyond my lifetime, whereas you're the one worried about your current taxes for education. I don't think Mormons, Catholics, and evangelicals can produce children fast enough to absorb this long-term funding liability created by secular thinking that sees children as a burden rather than a blessing.

What is your solution for Greece where for every 100 grandparents there are but 42 children to support them? Do you think it's possible grandma and grandpa will be eating dog food? This is what happens when a nation's birth rate drops below replacement value and cannot support services for itself, let alone safety nets for the poor and elderly.

Timothy Geithner, testifying before Congress this past week, said the U.S. has a "demographic" problem. I don't think he was talking about overpopulation, but rather under population of the productive age groups in 2020 and beyond.

Globally speaking, the fastest growing populations are not in former Roman Catholic nations where the church no longer holds sway on government family planning policies. Try telling Muslim women to stop producing soldiers for Allah.

Can you make a point that isn't so flaky and raw?

Making soldiers for Allah is rather crass. Right now those 'soldier kids' are being slaughtered wholesale along with mom, dad, kin and their dogs.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Mor(o)n

I guess Bilbao hasn't recently read a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America... If the Federal government has written a law concerning some item then a state has no standing to go against "the law of the land". That's the issue the Civil War decided. I guess Mr. Bilbao ain't too edurkated. I think this type of thinking has been decided multiple times by the US Supreme court as well... ie Roe v Wade. What Mr. Bilbao is attempting to do is to allow providers or employers to inflict their religious philoshopies on those around them. Sort of like the ways in which the Saudi royal family inflicts thier religious beliefs, and the ways in the government of Iran inflicts its religious views.

It's called the separation clause

REQUIRING anyone to violate their religious beliefs is a gross violation of the separation of State and Church.

That's a little over-stated.

And not entirely true.

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

Saying a little prayer in school

is wrong, but forcing citizens to violate their beliefs is over stated?

You can't have it both ways.

That's why Jim Bakker fell.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Prayer in school is not banned. Prayer that would have to be

sanctioned by government officials is. You are kind of ignorant on this issue, aren't you?

"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government." Neil Peart

Your knowledge of the

Your knowledge of the Constitution and American history is sorely lacking.

Zipped

If you really want to practice birth control, keep your pants zipped. Ha-ha-ha, send them to me while their hot......

Tit for Tat

I'll support Rep Bilbao's bill if he'll support ending taxpayer money being given to his church. As an atheist taxpayer that violates my rights of conscience.

What taxpayer money

was given to his church. Can you please cite such a transaction?

Sure...

How about this?

The roads driven on by church members are tax-payer supported. (That saves the church a butt load of money.)

Or: A church is on fire. Who responds to it? Bishops, deacons and priests? I think that would be tax-payer supported firefighters.

Or: A violent crime occurs on church property, involving church members. Do they investigate, prosecute and imprison.

(I'm sure there are several other examples that are better than what I typed, but I'm sleepy and not thinking well.)

See, there's lots of ways taxpayers pay the church's share.

The church members

all pay taxes to pay for those services. Are you going to bar other than actual residents to drive on the street in front of your home? Ambulances and LEO cannot respond to help you, unless you are on YOUR own property?

How silly. Try again.

Your response...

makes my point for me.

See, I pay an assortment of taxes for exactly the services you listed. Therefore, now follow the logic, as a taxpayer I have paid for it.

ya gotta keep em separated...

Freedom FROM religion. It's why America was founded.
Nice try Bilbao

Freedom OF religion..

not freedom from religion. People left England/Europe to escape religious persecution. Personally I believe that the insurance companies will take advantage of whatever means they can to line their pockets without having to pay on claims. They hate any form of prescription med coverage, because they don't make money from their premiums.

They left Europe to escape religious persecution....

from other religious folks who didn't agree with their beliefs.. So basically they were seeking freedom FROM religion.

No, it was freedom to worship THEIR way without persecution...

You missed something there.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Nope

It was the religious folks doing the persecution. This is an important distinction.They left Europe to be free from the intolerance of religious bias. They weren't being haras$ed by athiests. Somehow this point is never brought up when talking about this subject. They were fleeing from religion to practice their religion.

When Rep. Bilboa grows ovaries ...

"It is an attack on my rights of conscience," said Bilbao, a Catholic. "It is an affront to my religious freedoms...It is not right that we have to bow down and take something that is against our moral beliefs."

It's not a religious freedom issue, it's not just a moral beliefs issue, it's a woman's choice and health issue. It's not right I have to bow down and take something that is against my beliefs from Rep. Bilboa. Please stay out of my body until you are willing to give me a right to dictate your health choices.

"it's a woman's choice" A

"it's a woman's choice"

A woman's choice ends when it involves the death of another person (preborn) and that's EXACTLY what abortion of a human does.

More clueless

You do realize there is a cause and effect between lack of access to birth control and a rise in pregnancy? My choice is to use contraceptives. A man who has never used them, and admittedly doesn't believe in them, feels he's an adequate authority on the subject to make it harder for me to exercise that choice. Unless you have a uterus you should just keep your mouth shut.

Lack of access to birth

Lack of access to birth control is not a problem in this country. People choosing not to use contraceptives and/or refrain from sexual intercourse is what causes pregnancies my dear. "The pill" has been around for over 50 years, condoms and diaphrams longer than that, and yet the birth rate among unwed women has never been higher than it is in 2012 - 40% of all young mothers are unmarried. Nor do these births represent unwanted pregnancies in most cases.

A women's choice should never end

So I believe it's my moral and religious right to be able to dictate that all convervativeRednecks should get vasectomies. Can I make an appointment at the doctor's office for you and Rep. Balboa next week? Snip-Snip?

You gripe a lot for somebody we'll just have to bury some day..

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

LOL foreignoregon -- Thanks for the giggle

Seriously -- that's your idea of a comeback?!?

I don't care what it is.

It's typed.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Just couldn't resist

I'll bet you can't resist a response to this post either :o)

You are misguided

This is not about women's health and choice issues. It's about government power and whether the federal government can ignore the limitations imposed on it by the Constitution.

I thought it was about Bilbao acting stupid.

Looked again and it still is.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Because somehow this

Will make Idaho a better place to live.My God these yahoos need to go!

Don't forget all the Yahoos on that fishing expedition website.

----------

Believe in yourself. At least you won't troll yourself in blogs.

Of all the good legislation we COULD be proposing

THIS is what we are spending our time on?? Carlos, honey, you might be a nice old grandpa with a heart as big as all outdoors, but waging war on women in this state is the surest way I know to find yourself out of the statehouse and back in Emmett on a permanent basis. Please, please PLEASE tell me there aren't enough other self righteous, pompous, arrogant, unthinking, lunatics to get this thing out of committee. If you don't want to take birth control.....don't take it. But taking it can't be worse than young Catholic women popping babies out every year, with no daddy around...because if they put as much emphasis on not doing the bugger....as they do not using birth control....they'd be ahead of the game. maybe .

why must you use to government to restrict your members

It is sad that various religions have so little power over their members consciences that they must use government to enforce their views.

Why must we as non-believers be restricted to their views? Wasn't our country founded on the principal of religious freedom?

Is this how the R's limit government?

This morning, an all-male panel of religious leaders testified in front of a Congressional committee about birth control coverage. That's right, only men -- who are not doctors, by the way -- were allowed to testify by the GOP leadership about critical women's health coverage. No women. The all-male GOP leadership in Idaho and in Washington DC are calling on all-male religious leaders to decide whether birth control should be fully covered by insurance plans. We cannot let this happen. We cannot stand by while Far Right Republicans once again try to send us back to the Dark Ages. Vote "D" to go forward, not "R" to go backward.

Bilbao=Dipstick

The GOP is all for limited government except when they want to cram their religious (and usually misogynistic) beliefs down peoples throats.

No, did you read the post

Nothing was stated that insurance providers CANNOT cover birth control, just that they will not be REQUIRED to.

How is that cramming any religious beliefs down anyone's throats?

Wrong

This is what he said:

"It is an attack on my rights of conscience," said Bilbao, a Catholic. "It is an affront to my religious freedoms...It is not right that we have to bow down and take something that is against our moral beliefs."

Religious beliefs should not be used to create specific laws based on those beliefs.

Wrong

This is what he said:

"It is an attack on my rights of conscience," said Bilbao, a Catholic. "It is an affront to my religious freedoms...It is not right that we have to bow down and take something that is against our moral beliefs."

Religious beliefs should not be used to create specific laws based on those beliefs. He might as well be proposing a law that everyone has to attend church on Sunday, because that's what he believes.

good point

I'd have written that except I can't spell misogynistic.