The Catholic Bishops and their Republican allies argue that the Obama administration’s regulation requiring insurers and employers to offer reproductive health coverage at no additional cost sharing is an “unprecedented attack on religious liberties” that will force houses of worships to sacrifice deeply held beliefs. In reality, the rule, part of the Affordable Care Act, exempts houses of worship and other religious nonprofits that primarily employ and serve people of the same faith. But religious groups contend that its conscience protections are too narrow.

A closer examination of the Obama provision, however, reveals that the conscience language closely mirrors the existing provisions in at least five states:

– OBAMA: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an organization that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization.
(2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization.
(4)The organization is a nonprofit organization

– NEW YORK: For purposes of this subsection, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:

(a) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(b) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(c) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– CALIFORNIA: For purposes of this section, a “religious employer” is an entity for which each of the following is true:

(A) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(B) The entity primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(C) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(D) The entity is a nonprofit organization

– MICHIGAN: For our purposes, a “religious employer” is an entity for which all the following are true:

(a) The entity is a nonprofit organization
(b) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the entity.
(c) The entity primarily employs people who share the religious tenets of the entity.
(d) The entity serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the entity.

– OREGON: A “religious employer” is an employer:

(a) Whose purpose is the inculcation of religious values;
(b) That primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the employer;
(c) That primarily serves persons who share the religious tenets of the employer; and
(d) That is a nonprofit organization

Twenty-eight states already require employers, including most religiously affiliated institutions, to cover contraception in their health plans. The only change is that now they must cover the full cost. In fact, the administration will be expanding conscience protections in eight states, where all religious institutions are required to offer birth control coverage.

Lucy Panza contributed to this post.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) inadvertently referred to prominent Republicans like Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, and Eric Cantor as liars during an interview with Oklahoma’s News on 6 Thusday night. “Any politicians that stands up and says, ‘We’re not going to touch your Medicare’ is a liar,” Coburn said, apparently forgetting that the GOP has used the talking point as a center piece in their campaign to sell Medicare premium support to the public. Watch Coburn’s remarks:

The GOP has repeatedly argued that it would preserve benefits for existing seniors:

– PAUL RYAN: “If you take a look at our reforms…[they] don’t change any Medicare benefits for a person 55 or above.” [Fox News, 1/29/2012]

– MITT ROMNEY: “We will never go after Medicare or Social Security. We will protect those programs.” [TPM, 1/31/2012]

– ERIC CANTOR: “To today’s seniors, those 55 and older, we’re not going to touch those programs. For the rest of us, we realize these programs won’t be around in their current state and we have to change the nature of those programs for the rest of us.” [CNBC, 4/13/2011]

It’s very very likely that beneficiaries 55 and older would see changes in their Medicare benefits under Ryan’s plan. In 2022, newly-eligible seniors would have to enroll in a private plan, but existing beneficiaries (those who are over 55 today) would also have the option of leaving traditional Medicare. That opens up the possibilities of private plans trying to lure away the healthiest beneficiaries (as is currently the case in Medicare Advantage) and of health care providers abandoning traditional Medicare patients for the higher reimbursement rates of private insurers. For chronically ill seniors who are more likely to remain in fee-for-service Medicare this means two things: higher costs (as the healthier beneficiaries exit the risk pool) and fewer doctors.

The Dallas Morning News reports that Susan G. Komen For the Cure is reversing its decision to stop funding cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood health centers.

Facing an avalanche of criticism for caving to pressure from anti-abortion activists, Komen founder Nancy Brinker issued the following statement:

We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not. [...]

We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair. [...]

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.

Since announcing on Tuesday that they would end their relationship with Planned Parenthood, which provides cancer screenings and mammogram referrals for low-income women, Komen has faced a revolt from allies in the health community and its own employees.

Two top Komen officials resigned in protest following the announcement. Local chapters of Komen also rebelled, pledging to defy the order and continue funding Planned Parenthood.

Furthermore, Komen discovered that if they applied their new policy evenly to all organizations that receive their grants, they would be forced to stop funding institutions including Penn State University, not just Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, has been overwhelmed with an outpouring of support from across the country. They raised enough money in just a few days — $650,000 — to nearly make up for the funds they lost from the Komen grant. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg pledged to give $250,000 to Planned Parenthood.

Mitt Romney is out with another hypocritical op-ed misrepresenting the Obama administration’s new regulation requiring insurers and employers to provide reproductive health care services (like contraception) without additional cost sharing. “On January 20, 2012, the Obama administration affirmed a rule that would force Roman Catholic hospitals, charities, and universities to purchase health insurance for their employees that includes coverage for contraception, abortifacients, and sterilization, in violation of their religious principles,” Romney writes, adding, “This is wrong.”

But here, the former Massachusetts governor is hiding his war against contraception behind the facade of abortion, hoping to distract from his own past support for requiring Catholic hospitals to provide birth control to rape victims in 2005. And he’s lying about the Obama administration asking religious institutions to provide “abortifacients” in the process.

As the Jan. 20 rule explains, insurers and employers will cover “Evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of A or B in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force)” and “the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” The contraception language is included in the HRSA guidelines, it reads: “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” Those include:

Male Condom, Female Condom, Diaphragm with Spermicide, Sponge with Spermicide, Cervical Cap with Spermicide, Spermicide Alone, Oral Contraceptives (a.k.a. “the pill”), Patch, Vaginal Contraceptive Ring, Shot/Injection, Emergency Contraceptives, IUD, Implantable Rod, Vasectomy, Transcervical Surgical Sterilization Implant for women

These methods act to “prevent pregnancy before, and only before, fertilization occurs.” Emergency Contraceptives like Plan B — which conservatives have attempted to paint as an “abortion pill”– halts the union of sperm and oocyte and inhibits ovulation. It does not work after fertilization.

Twenty-eight states — including Massachusetts — already require coverage of contraception and the Obama regulation is modeled on their example. In fact, it’s even following in Romney’s own foot steps. As the Boston Globe reveals, “In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion. He said he was acting on his legal counsel’s interpretation of a new state law – one passed by lawmakers despite his veto – but he also said that “in his heart of hearts,’’ he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception” — despite the conscience objections of religious institutions.

“The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration,’’ said C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts told the Boston Globe. “President Obama’s plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I’m not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this.’’

While campaigning yesterday in Woodland Park, Colorado, GOP contender Rick Santorum told a sick child and his mother that they shouldn’t complain about the exorbitant cost of his medication because some people spend $900 on iPads. He appeared unmoved by the plight of the family, staunchly defending drug companies’ right to charge whatever they want.

The candidate also said that the parent and child unjustly felt entitled to get life-saving care at an affordable rate:

GOP contender Rick Santorum had a heated exchange with a mother and her sick young son Wednesday, arguing that drug companies were entitled to charge whatever the market demanded for life-saving therapies.[...]

“People have no problem paying $900 for an iPad,” Santorum said, “but paying $900 for a drug they have a problem with — it keeps you alive. Why? Because you’ve been conditioned to think health care is something you can get without having to pay for it.”

The mother said the boy was on the drug Abilify, used to treat schizophrenia, and that, on paper, its costs would exceed $1 million each year.

Santorum said drugs take years to develop and cost millions of dollars to produce, and manufacturers need to turn a profit or they would stop developing new drugs.

Santorum proceeded to lecture the mother and suggest she should be grateful to the drug companies for saving her son’s life. “He’s alive today because drug companies provide care,” Santorum said. “And if they didn’t think they could make money providing that drug, that drug wouldn’t be here.” He also claimed it would “freeze innovation” if pharmaceutical companies were required to offer their drugs at a reasonable price.

Although Santorum has been a vocal opponent of health care reform, his callous reaction is somewhat surprising given that he himself is the father of a daughter with a rare genetic disorder. But if the Colorado mother thought Santorum might be sympathetic to families in similar situations who happen to be less wealthy, she was sadly mistaken.