james land areas the president of alliance of health care sharing
ministries james great to be with you today on the let's just get right into
it wife should catholic or other religious employers have the ability to
exempt coverage for something like contraception
uh... on a religious basis
every american should have the liberty to decide
exactly what they've been on the cover with their own terms policy
as an employer i think that word irrespective of rem
of individual religious freedoms it
ever americans have that kind of liberty employers should be a decide whether or
not to cover bed health insurance
whether to include maternity birth control any other
topic that
they might want to take
consider to cover their deployed cleared or not at all
and so
it did when you extend that into the future from general liberty and the
religious liberty
every american also
ought to have the freedom
to be able to exclude from their insurance policy
anything they find morally objectionable
witnesses historically goes back to the hyde amendment for medicaid funding that
is occurring
every single time congress appropriates money for medicaid
the hyde amendment has been included in that under
the principle that
americans shouldn't be forced to pay for abortion with their taxpayer dollars
okinawa talking about abortion on talking about simply contraception
surely the principle is still the same
when it comes to contraception the reason americans shouldn't be forced to
pay for abortion
is because a significant portion of americans find abortion to be morally
objectionable
well for only catholics and for some protestants
paying for birth control false owner that same moral objection and two so two
supports them with their own private funds to pay four something they find
morally objectionable
of violation that same principle religious liberty
that's contained item m isn't a contradictory though because so many who
describe themselves as pro-life
are against abortion but they also want to support policies like uh... limiting
affordable access to contraception
isn't that simply going to cause and lead to more pregnancies
and simply as a numbers game even more abortions which is what they're trying
to prevent they claim
well inmate cosmo credit is the issue is weather
access to contraception is actually being limited
and separate argue for our principle that
not up covering it was your dollars inc ok on insurance policy for employees
limits access to birth control
i think that that's a ludicrous argument
it women who want access to birth control have
found access to it over the years
and had not having a covered on your church plays a very small limiting
access compared to having to go and get a doctor's prescription
before you can actually by those birth control pills yeah i don't think so that
i mean i think in we've seen i mean republicans have been trying to prepare
that people like ms woohoo rush limbaugh eloquently called the flag the other day
from testifying about how difficult it actually can be
uh... thousand dollars a year something which a college student may not have
access to so we have plenty of evidence but what you're saying is
there's no evidence that not having birth control
might not increase pregnancies is that what you said
no i said there's no or evidence that having to pay for at a pocket
presents any greater
of an obstacle to getting birth control
then
having it covered under insurance plan zero codec
because as soon as you cover that insurance
on your insurance that birth control was zero kobe
all that does is move the cost from one
pool of money to another pool of money and either the employer's gonna have to
pay for that
which is going to read
and la with
lower wages
or the employee
or the employee stinet paper that
through their insurance premiums somewhere nasa i don't buy that argument
you know i don't buy that i have because we're talking about it all the swing of
things which are covered by buyout health insurance
you're talking to people are going to net downwardly adjust wages based on the
addition of of
birth control coverage when we when you're talking about some of that's not
really a good argument i don't think i think anybody buys that
wet weather antibodies that are not doesn't strange that it's actually
economically true whether the it wages actually did just a downward
or whether they just move upward
with more slowly a spray doesn't change anything the employer can still the cost
of employing an individual
is still this saying whether or not
they paid out all the wages
whether as part of the insurance package whether our taxes their associate with
that
the cost of employement a vigil
is still the same in the market is going to trust those wages
plus benefits into a comparable position over time
no matter what we force the employer to pay for journalism's thing that made it
out the thing that will drive it way up is when they have to start covering all
of the pregnancies which will result as as a hug from not having access to birth
control but let me go into another angle here
for exams and that's not true
but insurance companies had done the actuarial studies
and actually providing birth control in the aggregate
has not shown itself to lower cost in the aggregate all verses just covering
the maternity care
they don't go along with that he had done so thought otherwise ok earns
companies would already be covering this for free
because it would make complete sense to them hello maximize their profits poured
out of a change standards comes to do something
it's a it's money jazz it does make complete sense it's for religious
reasons that they don't want to cover but i i i don't want to get bogged down
and i will have to agree to disagree i don't have the for that study in front
of me for what to say that for another time
the bible prohibits eating shellfish in leviticus eleven ten
if an employer wants and not provide coverage for an allergic reaction
resulting from beating shellfish in that's in the bible would that be ok
with that be acceptable to cherry pick that and say
no coverage
we'll add about what they can fork over the entire of merchants the room of bill
well i would say that under did principles of american liberty that that
should be it
a dental outlook section the first place i think that the way you're applying
that
fully ludicrous you now saying that
purges hearing coverage for
not being selfish it is it completely different
then issues related to birth control
and religious liberty however identify how is a different than
with the the difference is that
her roman catholics they believe that a birth control pill
is actually had a board of fishing drugs
they believe that it's actually that plus a plan b emergency perception and
session that wrong
why is what we're why did and then so why does that make it something they
don't want to cover because the religion tells them so right
that's correct
the same way uh... as engine being shall use generic deserves a medal as usual
violent
at stake here and isolated state
as opposed to do merely
aqa situation
let's go a long whatever services
at issue here is
just
what do we forced people to cover because he intelli government passed the
affordable care act
employers were free pizza design plans that met with
whatever they wanted with their own liberty
and whether you're of the religious employer or not a religious employer
having that for him to design a plan
as you see fit is a part of traditional american liberty
and employees are free to either
say yes if i like that plan or no
and they don't work for somebody that covers everything i want them to cover
and beyond that and i i i'm just really not seeing the difference between the
shellfish and jim bunning to give one other
tattoos are banned in the bible leviticus nineteen twenty eight
texans can lead to infection should a catholic employer be allowed to say hey
were not covering anything because our religion says you shouldn't have that
had to in the first place it would that be ok
while the catholic church isn't arguing that
and so we don't really need to go down that road instead to san fran religion
effective it is a religious employers to say no
if you get in an accident related to attack to that we don't think he's too
gotten in the first place
if no one's arguing about whether or not employers should be allowed two billion
people from being hired because they're visible tattoos
you did not know what i'm talking about hearing
apples
and oranges
but when someone comes to work for religious institution
they need to understand that they're going to be
finding themselves in some sense
to the religious views of the institution they're working for
okay well yeah i think i think we're gonna have a anyway to escape that
without violating
religious liberty
yet nella that that's uh...
uh... but what we're gonna have to agree to disagree it's an interesting
conversation i don't really see the difference between the birth control the
shellfish in the patches i have to say you do will have to know what they're
going to disagree james lands barry is president of the alliance of health care
sharing ministries a great to talk to you get your perspective today james
well thanks for having to everyday