Contraception plan blasted

By ANNMARIE TIMMINS

Monitor Staff

Last modified: 2/17/2012 12:00:00 AM

Republican leaders in the House are facing increasing opposition as they try to exempt church groups and religious-minded employers from having to cover birth control in their insurance plans.



The biggest challenge may be that while House Speaker Bill O'Brien and Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt insist their interest is protecting religious freedom, their critics are recasting their legislation as a morality attack on women, choice and reproductive care.



"Enough is enough," said former Republican state senator Rick Russman of Kingston as he testified yesterday against a bill from O'Brien and Bettencourt calling on federal officials to drop a mandate on contraceptive coverage. "There is a growing number of people out there who feel . . . that this Legislature was (voted in) on jobs and the economy and not a lengthy social agenda. Clearly, the majority of people know it's good public policy to make contraception accessible and affordable."



O'Brien and Bettencourt have two pieces of legislation inspired by the national debate over whether the federal government can require contraception coverage. O'Brien said other states are looking at New Hampshire as they pursue similar legislation.



The first, announced last Friday, is the message to federal health care officials. The second, which is still in the works, would undo a 12-year-old state law that requires insurance companies to cover birth control if they cover other prescriptions.



There is no religious exemption in the state law, but organizations that self-insure, like the Diocese of Manchester and the Catholic Medical Center, are not obliged to cover contraception. Other Catholic employers, including Saint Anselm College in Manchester and New Hampshire Catholic Charities, do offer contraception because they are not self-insured, the Union Leader reported Sunday.



The 1999 bill was sponsored by four Republicans and four Democrats, and it passed the House with equal numbers from both parties.



This is the first attempt to amend the law. O'Brien said last Friday he had just learned of the law and believes it needs an exemption for not only faith-based groups but also religious-minded employers who have moral objections to contraception.



Rep. Sandra Keans, a Rochester Democrat, asked O'Brien if he had considered the ability of faith-based organizations to recruit employees if contraception was not covered in their health plan. She said several Catholic institutions seem to have been providing contraceptive coverage "happily" for a decade.



"You ask me to adopt your factual assumption," O'Brien responded. "I don't adopt your factual assumption. I don't think they are happily following this law."



At the House committee hearing yesterday, religious freedom was a topic of discussion.



"It's the job of government to secure the rights of all people, not just certain institutions," said Rep. Andrew Manuse, a Derry Republican. "This mandate (from the federal government to cover birth control) . . . does not respect the freedom of individuals for whom providing contraceptive coverage violates their own conscience."



He called abortion a contraceptive he does not support.



Diane Quinlan, chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester, also spoke in favor of allowing churches and other employers to follow their religious convictions. "Some have attempted to frame this as the Church attempting to impose its views on others," Quinlan said. "That is not true. Rescinding the mandate would not deny women access to contraceptives or sterilization. It would mean those who object to (those things) because they believe them immoral would not have to pay for them."



Just as prominent, however, was a debate about birth control, its merits and a woman's right to easily obtain it.



"This is about religion," committee member Rep. Jeanine Notter, a Merrimack Republican, told Manuse. "But since you mentioned birth control, as a man, would it interest you to know (a study) links the pill to prostate cancer?" According to Notter, males born to women who have taken birth control pills have an increased chance of getting prostate cancer.



A video clip of the exchange circulated quickly in the Twittersphere.



Rep. Lynne Blakenbeker, a Concord Republican, said women already have two affordable, accessible forms of birth control: abstinence, which she said "works 100 percent of the time," and condoms.



Also debated were the advantages of oral contraceptives over condoms, the success of abstinence, and whether contraception should be an insurance elective.



"I guess I'm struggling how the federal government can mandate just one elective procedure or medication like birth control," Blankenbeker said. "Why aren't they compelling insurance companies to offer in vitro fertilization and why not liposuction or other plastic surgeries?"



Couldn't those electives also be considered important to the constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, she asked.



Planned Parenthood of Northern New England encouraged supporters to rally outside the meeting yesterday. About 20 people came, one holding a sign that said, "Honk if you use birth control."



Jennifer Frizzell, policy director for Planned Parenthood, attended the hearing but did not testify. She said by email that this legislation is the latest in the ongoing "full scale attack on birth control and other critical women's health care services provided at Planned Parenthood."



Frizzell said other examples include Executive Councilor Dan St. Hilaire's vote to deny Planned Parenthood state funding and, nationally, the Susan G. Komen Foundation's decision to suspend grants for clinical breast exams.



"Each of these occasions has motivated a new crop of activists and volunteers of all generations," Frizzell said, "and led to a surge of outcry from women and men in the community who won't stand idle while elected officials play politics with women's health care."



The State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs Committee also heard testimony from three women who urged lawmakers to remember that birth control pills can also be prescribed for medical conditions, including hormone therapy.



When asked via email yesterday whether his definition of contraception would include vasectomies, O'Brien answered through spokeswoman Shannon Shutts.



"This resolution is not about the merits of contraception or sterilization, or even about whether or not insurers choose to offer coverage for these services in their policies," O'Brien's statement said. "It also is not about the merits of the Catholic Church's policy on contraception, sterilization or any other aspects of the Church's teachings or beliefs."



Keans also questioned what medicines or procedures employers should be allowed to exclude from coverage.



She asked Manuse whether he'd favor letting employers make coverage choices beyond contraception. Manuse said he would.



"Would it be okay to prevent (the coverage) of heart medication?" she asked.



"I think that is an absurd premise," Manuse replied.



The committee had intended to vote on O'Brien and Bettencourt's resolution yesterday but realized they hadn't given the public the required notice. The committee rescheduled the vote for Tuesday at 8:30 a.m.



(Annmarie Timmins can be reached at 369-3323 or at atimmins@cmonitor.com)





