The NH House passed a resolution today condemning the White House for its infamous contraception rule. The NH Journal notes that this was a national first: “The New Hampshire House of Representatives has thus become the first elected body in America to officially vote to condemn the ruling.” Although without teeth, this move is still nice to see. Here is the story:
The Republican-dominated state House of Representatives overwhelming voted Wednesday to condemn the Obama administration’s controversial rule requiring religiously-affiliated institutions to offer health coverage that includes “free” access to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. The House’s Resolution 29 passed with a vote of 227-121. [snip]
“House Resolution 29 is not about the merits of contraception,” said House Speaker William O’Brien. It is not about whether insurers choose to offer coverage for these services in their policies. It also is not about the Catholic Church’s policies on contraception, sterilization or any other of its teachings or beliefs. Rather, HR 29 stands up for our religious institutions that have long-held principles and teachings under assault by a president and his ideology that seeks not merely to reject, but to tear down our liberties.”
“House leadership introduced House Resolution 29 to defend New Hampshire’s long and proud history of religious tolerance, while pushing back against the deeply flawed law known as ObamaCare,” added House Majority Leader D.J. Bettencourt. “The new mandate from the Obama administration requiring religious organizations to offer insurance coverage for practices that go against the teachings and tenets of their faith is an unnecessary, cynical and unconstitutional attack on religious institutions. To those who say HR29 detracts from this legislature’s focus on New Hampshire’s economy, let us remind them this issue highlights a critical issue facing our economy, the effect of mandates on the cost of health insurance.”
PILEUS 
I wonder if Leader Bettencourt would be OK with certain religious employers banning vaccination or requiring same sex doctors for all patients…
Michael, no one is proposing to ban anything. Saying “I will not pay for your contraception” does not constitute a ban on contraception. It is not prohibited; there are no fines associated with procuring or using it. Anyone who claims otherwise is, in addition to engaging in sophistry, really claiming a right to other people’s money. Whoever wants to use contraception is free to go right ahead—but, as with anything else, you must do it the honest way by paying for it yourself.
You are correct. Poor choice of words on my part (it was late). I wonder if Leader Bettencourt would be OK with religious organizations refusing to have their sponsored insurance plan cover vaccinations or any treatment performed by opposite sex doctors.
To add to Michael’s question, “and does he support getting rid of the numerous insurance mandates that increase the costs of insurance coverage and restrict the ability of customers and insurance companies to conclude mutually agreed upon plans?”
What a colossal, silly waste of time by the NH State Legislature. The proposed Federal mandate is WEAKER than existing New Hampshire laws.
Looks like people have to be stoopid to be legislators in New Hampshire.
They’re trying to change the state law too, FYI.
First, it’s interesting to me that it’s MEN that are determining the future of WOMEN’S health care. I wonder what it would look like if women could determine what healthcare men could receive?
Second, on current insurance plans contraceptives are covered, why should that change for EVERYONE because religious organizations are afraid their “flock” might use them? Just because the plan offers them does not mean your employees have to use them and therefore you as an employer aren’t paying for them. Problem solved and it leaves it in the hands of the individual to make the choice not government.