I've got a question....
How does this NOT constitute discrimination of a legally actionable nature?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/23/431262/right-wing-media-group-pledges-to-strip-birth-control-out-of-health-plan-after-providing-it-for-years/
Upon hearing news of President Obama’s regulation requiring all employers to offer contraception coverage without additional cost sharing, Bozell examined his own organization’s insurance policy and was “horrified” to learn that MRC’s plan has long provided contraception (and abortion) coverage. Bozell asked his employees to stop using “contraception/abortifacient/abortion services” and promised to eliminate the benefits at once:
“[W]e are working to change our insurance policy so as not to have to comply with this administration’s disgusting mandate to provide contraceptive, sterilization and abortifacient services. In the course of looking into this I have learned our insurance policy provides abortion services. I cannot begin to tell you how horrified I am by that. I never would have approved this had I known. It is the taking of a human life. That will change.”
If Congress approves Blunt’s amendment, employers like Bozell would be able to make health decisions for their employees on the basis of their own personal beliefs. About two-thirds of Americans oppose this idea, but Bozell is already putting it into practice.
This is an employer literally stripping his female employees -- and his female employees only -- of part of the compensation he is contractually obligated to provide, after providing it for years, and apparently having no "conscience" issues until it was politically expedient to do so. Do I smell a lawsuit?
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/02/23/431262/right-wing-media-group-pledges-to-strip-birth-control-out-of-health-plan-after-providing-it-for-years/
Upon hearing news of President Obama’s regulation requiring all employers to offer contraception coverage without additional cost sharing, Bozell examined his own organization’s insurance policy and was “horrified” to learn that MRC’s plan has long provided contraception (and abortion) coverage. Bozell asked his employees to stop using “contraception/abortifacient/abortion services” and promised to eliminate the benefits at once:
“[W]e are working to change our insurance policy so as not to have to comply with this administration’s disgusting mandate to provide contraceptive, sterilization and abortifacient services. In the course of looking into this I have learned our insurance policy provides abortion services. I cannot begin to tell you how horrified I am by that. I never would have approved this had I known. It is the taking of a human life. That will change.”
If Congress approves Blunt’s amendment, employers like Bozell would be able to make health decisions for their employees on the basis of their own personal beliefs. About two-thirds of Americans oppose this idea, but Bozell is already putting it into practice.
This is an employer literally stripping his female employees -- and his female employees only -- of part of the compensation he is contractually obligated to provide, after providing it for years, and apparently having no "conscience" issues until it was politically expedient to do so. Do I smell a lawsuit?