Who Decides? Delays and Barriers to Accessing Birth Control at Georgetown University
by Sandra Fluke, Georgetown University Law Students for Reproductive Justice

February 7, 2012 - 1:48pm (Print)


As you may have recently read in the New York Times, although Georgetown’s student health insurance doesn’t cover contraception, it does ostensibly cover birth control pills when they’re prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy (e.g. severe acne, mood disorders, and so forth). This is called the “over-ride” process because it over-rides the usual ban on contraceptive coverage. Unfortunately, this over-ride process is terribly flawed and fails many women at Georgetown. The problems with this process illustrate the consequences for women’s health when university administrators dictate which reasons for a birth control prescription are the “right” reasons.

Because of an obsession with preventing students from fraudulently using the over-ride to get contraception coverage for the “wrong” reason (preventing pregnancy), students who attempt to use the over-ride process are sometimes subjected to questioning and accusations that they are lying about their qualifying medical needs. This is followed with long delays and bureaucratic barriers that don’t exist for any other prescription covered by Georgetown’s insurance. The Times profiled how Georgetown’s policy resulted in a medical tragedy for one woman. In response a Georgetown spokeswoman said that:

problems like this were rare and that doctors at the health service knew how to help students get coverage for contraceptives needed for medical reasons.

If only that were true! Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice actually surveyed students at the law school about this. For some students, the over-ride process works adequately, but 65 percent of students attempting to utilize the over-ride process reported being subjected to extensive questioning, inordinate clerical issues, extensive delays, or other complications because of disbelief from doctors and insurance administrators. Twenty percent either never received their medication or were never reimbursed by the insurance company. Here are the experiences of just a few students:

"I was without birth control for many months because of problems with the over-ride. I spoke with people at [the student health] clinic, the Georgetown main insurance office, the insurance company, the drug insurance company, and a pharmacy. I was put on hold multiple times and had to call some of these people multiple times. After investing at least ten hours in the process, I gave up. . . ."

"Simply because I am sexually active, the doctor assumed I was lying even though I have medical needs. I struggled with getting an over-ride because the doctor was hesitant even though I reported severe pain and mood changes that affect my functioning as a student. . . ."

"[M]y OB/GYN suspects that I have endometriosis and I took a specific pill to help control it. Endometriosis cannot be definitively diagnosed without surgery, and obtaining a waiver was stressful and time consuming. It unnecessarily distracted me from my classes. . . ."

"I have found the health care coverage ban on birth control embarrassing and potentially harmful. When scheduling a yearly gynecological exam, I was subject to a line of hostile questioning twice: once by the person scheduling the exam and once by the doctor performing the exam. The questions included queries about my sexual history, which seems appropriate for the doctor to ask about, but not the scheduler. A yearly gynecological exam is a recommended procedure and may not even be tied to a birth control prescription. Georgetown’s refusal to cover birth control creates a potential burden on a woman getting this exam at all. . . ."

Tragically, Georgetown’s policy has also created rampant misinformation regarding student insurance coverage of women’s reproductive healthcare generally, leading to some students foregoing essential medical care:

"[I] was intimidated by the [‘override’] process and thus I did forego OBGYN care for over a year. More importantly, the reputation that Georgetown has as being . . . unsupportive of women’s reproductive health prevented me from seeking out STD testing after I was sexually assaulted. (I assumed [Georgetown] would not cover my HIV/STD testing because when I was tested last year at my provider’s office . . . as part of a regular/routine exam, I paid $500 due to lack of coverage. It was not until several months after I was assaulted that I found out . . . that [Georgetown] would cover such tests. In general, there is a problematic lack of info about women’s health coverage on campus. I did not even know I could get an OBGYN exam at the law center until a friend told me my 2L year. While I support Georgetown’s Jesuit identity and am a person of faith myself, I find our school’s policy to be . . . harmful to students. . . ."

I’d say “harmful to students” is putting it lightly. That’s why we’re so thankful that the new Affordable Care Act regulations will protect vulnerable students and end these types of dangerous insurance policies!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information about hurdling institutional barriers to birth control, see: How to Host a Birth Control Clinic in 3 Easy Steps by Emily T. Wolf, Vice President of Fordham Law Students for Reproductive Choice


http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/20...georgetown

Give Church organizations and businesses an exemption, haven't multiple groups and the entire state of Nebraska been given exemptions?

If you want B/C as part of your plan don't work for a Church or in the state of Nebraska.

(02-16-2012 03:50 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  One example of a letter distributed by the Catholic Church:

Quote: Statement of the Archdiocese of Washington on HHS Mandate Upheld by Obama Administration


January 20, 2012

The Archdiocese of Washington echoes the concerns raised by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in a statement released Friday in response to the Obama Administration’s decision to enact regulations that will force most Catholic employers to provide health care plans covering sterilization procedures and all FDA approved contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs.

Until now, no federal law has required anyone to purchase, sell, sponsor, or be covered by a private health plan that violates his or her conscience. Under the HHS edict, however, virtually all Catholic charitable organizations, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities that want to provide for the needs of their employees and students in a manner consistent with Catholic moral teachings will be placed in the untenable position of having to choose between violating the law and violating their conscience.

Religious liberty is the most cherished and fundamental of American freedoms. As Thomas Jefferson observed in 1809, “No provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority.”

In a meeting with Cardinal Donald Wuerl and other American bishops on Thursday, Pope Benedict XVI addressed recent attacks on religious freedom, calling upon the American Catholic community to realize they are “grave threats to the Church’s public moral witness presented by a radical secularism which finds increasing expression in the political and cultural spheres.” In response to these threats, Pope Benedict said the Church urges the Catholic laity to have the courage to proclaim “respect for God's gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights.”

As Cardinal Wuerl has previously stated, “No freedom is more precious and deserving of vigilance than our freedom of conscience.”

http://www.adw.org/query2011/newsite_new...&Year=2012

I dont believe this is a health care issue. I think Americans and Catholics at their choosing may use all the birtcontrol they want. I support my right to wear a condom and yours as well.

How much does a vasectomy or a tubal ligation cost?

Both are sins in the Catholic Church, and presumably contraception for which the Catholic Church will not pay.

You are grossly undersimplifying this health issue.

Great debate going on.

Crew if you type religeon one more time my head may explode. It's religion. Sorry. not trying to be an ass. Carry on.

To make the Republican rhetoric even more absurd, the precompromise version of the Obama insurance rule is already the law in two of the biggest states, New York and California, as Linda Greenhouse has noted in The New York Times. Moreover, as Nick Baumann has documented in Mother Jones, contraception has already been legally required in all health-insurance plans since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled in 2000 that omitting it was unconstitutional sex discrimination. (The Bush administration did nothing to oppose the ruling.) And yet Pastor Rick Warren said last week that he would be prepared to go to jail over the Obama rule (making one wonder why, as a resident of California, he isn’t sitting in a cell already). So with this new compromise, Obama has actually increased religious freedom, not restricted it. All of which makes one wonder exactly how genuine the current outrage is—or whether it is part and parcel of a political campaign against Obama rather than a defense of religious freedom

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/20...e=timeline

Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients – all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

Nonetheless, the accounting device worked politically. It took only a handful of compliant Catholic groups – Obamacare cheerleaders dying to return to the fold – to hail the alleged compromise, and hand Obama a major political victory.

A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept Obama’s contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has ordered private companies to give away a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to select beneficiaries?

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious,” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion – no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services – all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care – a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is a middleman, subject to state control – and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court – because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta – the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen – should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

In 2010, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party, whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120...RONTPAGE|s