SCUS could deprive Birth control coverage to hundreds of thousands of women!!

[riversedge]

The Supreme Court decision on birth control coverage under the ACA could potentially deprive hundreds of thousands of women of access to low-cost contraceptives.

Link to tweet

?s=20




Supreme Court Excuses Organizations with Religious or Moral Objections from Covering Workers’ Birth Control
July 9, 2020
Timothy S. Jost
supreme court contraception
Toplines

Tim Jost analyzes the Supreme Court’s decision to excuse organizations with religious or moral objections from covering their employees’ birth control


The Supreme Court decision on birth control coverage under the ACA could potentially deprive hundreds of thousands of women of access to low-cost contraceptives

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2020/supreme-court-excuses-organizations-religious-or-moral-objections-covering-workers-birth?utm_source=twitterads&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Health%20Coverage


On July 8, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision in two cases: Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania v. Trump. The decision is the Court’s latest foray into the most litigated Affordable Care Act (ACA) issue — whether organizations that object to contraceptives for religious or moral reasons can block their employees and students from receiving contraceptive coverage through their group health plans. The Court upheld Trump administration regulations that exempt objecting organizations from having to cooperate in providing such coverage.
Background

The ACA requires insurers and group health plans to provide their enrollees with specific preventive health services without cost, including women’s services included in guidelines written by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). In 2011, HRSA designated contraceptives as one such service. Recognizing that some religious groups object to contraceptives, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) excluded churches and similar organizations from the mandate.

But many other entities that had religious objections were not exempted, including nonprofit hospitals, schools, universities, and charities, as well as some family-owned businesses. In 2013, HHS amended its rule to allow other religious entities to refuse to cover contraceptives. The rule required objecting organizations to certify their objections to their insurers and plan administrators. In most instances, the insurers or plan administrators were then required to provide contraceptive coverage themselves. Only nonprofits qualified for the exemption. Many nonprofits rejected this accommodation and sued, asking to be totally free from the certification requirement. Meanwhile, family businesses sued as well, asking for an accommodation of their religious beliefs. Ultimately about 100 nonprofits and businesses pursued lawsuits.

The first case to reach the Supreme Court, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) entitled non–publicly traded businesses that objected to providing contraceptives for religious reasons to an accommodation. (RFRA provides that federal regulations may not substantially burden the exercise of religion unless the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.) Shortly thereafter, HHS adopted an interim rule allowing objectors simply to notify HHS of their objection..........................

[Iliyah]

1. First, my employer has the . .

absolute decision on my rights regarding my body because he or she feels it's against their "religious" beliefs? Oh hell no.

We are going back 60 years. Enough!

[FBaggins]

2. Persuasive... but a bit hyperbolic

The rule has been in place less than a decade, so it doesn’t take us back 60 years. I think it’s about five.

Moreover... the ruling (which included two of the liberal justices) gives your employer no rights over your body or ability to get contraception.

The RW talking point is that they just don’t have to give it to you at their own expense... but the reality is that you were still paying for it through insurance premiums shared with other employees. The net effect is probably a doubling in cost for the average employee.