Here we go again with religious motives snaking tendrils into secular government, and business. I am copying and pasting, in its entirety, an email I received from the FFRF this morning. It's a call to action to speak out against a proposed regulation that would force healthcare providers to bill customers seprately for that portion of their healthcare premium that was spent on abortions. Completely ridiculous. Here it is:

Last week, the Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services (CMS) released a proposed rule that would require ACA marketplace plans to send consumers a specific “abortion bill” each month, representing the share of their premium going toward covering abortion services. Consumers would be required to pay this bill separately.

This seemingly innocuous proposed rule, said to “protect rights of conscience,” is another insidious attempt by the Trump-Pence administration to impose discriminatory barriers to women’s health care in the name of religious liberty.

FFRF fervently condemns the administration’s continued use of religious dogma to subjugate women and this frivolous proposed rule. We have submitted an official comment.

CMS is accepting public comments on this proposal right now. Click on the red “TAKE ACTION” link below and then click on the blue “Comment Now!” button in the upper righthand corner. Please feel free to use or adapt the talking points provided below.

Here's the link: [regulations.gov]

TALKING POINTS

As a taxpayer, I am dismayed by the unnecessary and burdensome proposed rule, file code CMS-9922-P. It purports to protect rights of conscience, but it is clearly a religiously motivated attempt to create additional barriers to women being able to exercise their right to choose. The rule does not protect religion, it imposes religion on consumers.

Secondly, the rule is burdensome and confusing for consumers. Forcing customers to decipher and pay two separate bills for the same premium is ludicrous. It is unimaginable that this same practice would be implemented for other routine health care procedures. Therefore, it is clear that advancing religion, specifically conservative or evangelical Christianity, is the true purpose of this rule.

I strongly disapprove of and urge the department not to move forward with this proposal. It puts undue burden on both consumers and health care providers in the name of elevating religion and has no place in public policy. Thank you.

I very strongly urge you all to comment. I have.