My Turn: Supreme Court should protect contraceptive coverage

  • By CATRIONA REYNOLDS
  • Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:00am
  • Opinion

Two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that closely held for-profit companies do not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement if the company’s owners have moral or religious objections, this important health benefit is going back to the high court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard Zubik v. Burwell, a challenge to the Obama administration’s accommodation for religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations that object to being required to providing contraceptive coverage for their employees. Under the accommodation, all they need to do is fill out a form stating their objection to opt out of having to provide coverage, and the insurance company provides the contraceptive coverage instead. But the groups challenging this accommodation argue that putting their objection in writing makes them party to something that goes against their beliefs.

Two years ago Hobby Lobby opened a dangerous door and now, with Zubik, these employers are trying to tear that door off its hinges — arguing the interests of employers far outweigh the health of their employees. Where do we draw the line between accommodating religious belief and protecting the health and rights of those impacted by such accommodation? With Zubik, some think they can erase the line. If the plaintiffs prevail, more women will lose their contraceptive coverage.

Plaintiffs argue that the accommodation is unacceptable because it is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Plaintiffs have asserted that safety-net programs such as the Title X family planning program could simply step in to provide the coverage to which their employees are entitled by law. One of the nonprofit briefs even suggests redefining what it means to be “low-income” under Title X to include women who can’t get contraceptive coverage under their employer-based plan because their employer objects. That argument not only represents a misunderstanding of the program’s purpose and design, it’s foolhardy and dangerous.

Each year, 45 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Regular use of contraception prevents unintended pregnancy, improves women’s health outcomes, and saves millions of dollars in health care costs. The Title X program was designed to meet the preventive health care needs of the millions of poor and low-income women and men who rely on it as their usual, and oftentimes sole, source of health care. In 2015, 88 percent of clients at Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic were low-income, 38 percent were uninsured and 19 percent received Medicaid. In 2013, 68 percent of clients were uninsured. We have worked diligently as Certified Application Counsellors to assist clients to enroll in Marketplace insurance and Medicaid.

While Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic provides care to anyone who comes through our doors, Title X was not designed nor is it funded to meet the contraceptive needs of women who otherwise have employer-based insurance coverage. Congress has never sufficiently funded the program to meet existing (and growing) need. At current funding levels, the program only serves about one third of the women in need of publicly funded family planning care in this country.

The Supreme Court should recognize that good reproductive health is only achieved when women are given full access to the family planning care and information they need to make the best decisions for themselves and the ones they love.

• Catriona Reynolds is the clinic manager for the Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic in Homer.

More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka and former President Donald Trump stand on stage during a July 2022 rally in Anchorage. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: Tshibaka’s insincere defense of democracy

Kelly Tshibaka claims to understand why voter turnout for the 2022 general… Continue reading

(Courtesy Photo / Gwen Baluss)
Opinion: The Mendenhall Wetlands — a Juneau treasure

Juneau is very fortunate to have this rich biological resource…

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski prepares to meet officials at the Sealaska Heritage Institute during a visit to Juneau in November 2022. (Mark Sabbatini / Juneau Empire File)
Juneau stands to benefit significantly from the 117th Congress

The last Congress was one of the best for our state in recent memory…

Capitol
Opinion: Humanism and the billionaire class

Compromise is the right thing to do and they should do it.

Alexander B. Dolitsky
Opinion: Neo-Marxism is a threat to the country

In the early 1980s, I attended graduate school at Brown University. Then,… Continue reading

(Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire File)
The problem with ‘Always Fighting’

What about “Always Thinking” or “Always Working” or just “Always Building Coalitions for Alaska.”

(Clarise Larson / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: A million visitors isn’t enough. Here’s why

I’ve been thinking about Pat White’s recent My Turn, Is anyone else… Continue reading

tt
The challenged truths of three elected representatives

Last Friday, the state Supreme Court affirmed that state Rep. Jennifer Armstrong,… Continue reading

Most Read