D.C. Mayor Delays Law Requiring Insurers To Cover Contraceptives.A controversial measure that would have required health insurers in the District of Columbia District of Columbia, federal district (2000 pop. 572,059, a 5.7% decrease in population since the 1990 census), 69 sq mi (179 sq km), on the east bank of the Potomac River, coextensive with the city of Washington, D.C. (the capital of the United States). to pay for contraceptives under their health plans has been put on hold by Mayor Anthony Williams Anthony Williams or Tony Williams is the name of several well-known persons named :
Williams opted not to sign the bill, a pocket veto pocket veto n. 1. The indirect veto of a bill received by the President within ten days of the adjournment of Congress, effected by retaining the bill unsigned until Congress adjourns. 2. , in anticipation of a future compromise measure to include a "conscience clause conscience clause n. A clause in a law that relieves persons whose conscientious or religious scruples forbid compliance. ," which would exempt religious institutions, District officials said. The legislation would require religious and other institutions opposed to birth control and abortion to provide contraceptive coverage for all members of a family, including teen-agers, when plans include prescription drugs prescription drug Prescription medication Pharmacology An FDA-approved drug which must, by federal law or regulation, be dispensed only pursuant to a prescription–eg, finished dose form and active ingredients subject to the provisos of the Federal Food, Drug, . Many religious organizations that provide medical benefits for their workers object to such coverage, citing religious beliefs. The Catholic church, for example, runs schools, hospitals, a charity and other organizations within the city and has mounted a campaign to defeat the measure. The City Council passed the legislation unanimously in July after such a clause was dropped, following heated debate over associated religious issues and rights. But some council members asked the mayor to veto the bill so that it could be reworked later this year. The council is expected to address the legislation again in the fall. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion