Religious Freedom and Women's Health — The Litigation on Contraception (New Eng Jour Med)

[pinto]

Religious Freedom and Women's Health — The Litigation on Contraception

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost, J.D.
December 19, 2012

Health policy experts widely agree that health care should not merely be sickness care; rather, it should actively prevent disease and preserve wellness. Not surprisingly, therefore, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contains an entire chapter dealing with prevention and public health. The ACA also improves private and public insurance coverage of preventive care. One preventive care requirement, however, has caused a major headache for the Obama administration. Indeed, it has provoked charges that the administration is waging “a war on religion.”

The ACA requires private insurers and group health plans (except for “grandfathered” plans, defined as those that existed at the time the ACA became law and have not significantly changed) to cover preventive services without cost sharing by enrollees. This provision does not list the covered services, instead referencing the recommendations of other federal agencies that deal with prevention. It specifically requires coverage of women's preventive care and screening services “provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration” (HRSA).

At HRSA's request, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified women's preventive services that should be covered. On August 1, 2011, HRSA released guidelines based on the IOM's recommendations. Among the services that health plans and insurers must cover are “all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive methods.” Coverage must be available for plan years beginning after August 1, 2012.

Requiring contraception coverage is not a radical innovation. Twenty-eight states currently require insurers (with some exceptions) to cover contraceptives. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also concluded that contraception coverage is required by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, although federal courts have come to contradictory conclusions on this question. But contraception is considered to be a “grave sin” by the Roman Catholic church, and a number of Protestant organizations object specifically to “morning after” contraceptives and intrauterine devices, which they consider to be abortifacients.

<citations and more at>

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1214605?query=TOC

[Warpy]

1. Religious rights and freedoms exist for individuals

and not for public organizations those individuals might own or run.

Any church is legally allowed to rail against contraception and abortion from the pulpit. No church should be allowed to bully employees who are not members of that church and certainly should never be able to dictate the terms of how they live their private lives, including by levying a financial penalty against them.

If institutions are granted religious protections over that granted to individuals, this country is finished. We will have completely lost the intent of the founders to keep institutional bullying by church or state off the backs of the people.

[pinto]

2. I think that's the gist of this piece, just presented in a legal framework (author is a lawyer).

[drm604]

3. Very well put.

Your last paragraph states the issue correctly. Religious freedom belongs to individuals. If only the courts had ruled that way regarding speech.

[niyad]

4. my health and well-being should not be permitted to be held hostage to some religion's view

of what is or is not moral, especially if I am not a member of that religion. how hard is that to understand?

[pinto]

5. Hi. You may be missing this key point in the article -

"At HRSA's request, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) identified women's preventive services that should be covered. On August 1, 2011, HRSA released guidelines based on the IOM's recommendations. Among the services that health plans and insurers must cover are “all Food and Drug Administration–approved contraceptive methods.” Coverage must be available for plan years beginning after August 1, 2012."

Not sure how it will all play out but HRSA seems to have a clear take on implementation.

[niyad]

6. no, not missing the point. the comment is addressed to those religious nutbars who think

they have a right to interfere in my decisions, along with the damned courts who are allowing pharmacists and others to claim "religious conscience" or whatever, to allow them to force their beliefs on others.