On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on whether an employer can be mandated to offer birth control to their employees via employer-paid health plans. According to reforms made under the Affordable Care Act to increase coverage for women’s preventive services, access to contraceptive options is one of the deductible-free additions to individual and group health plans.
Along with contraceptive access, the health care law also calls for at least one well-woman preventive care visit per year, screening for gestational diabetes, HPV testing, sexually transmitted infection counselling, HIV screening and counseling, breastfeeding support and counseling, and domestic and interpersonal violence screening and counseling for all women at no out-of-pocket cost. Of all the services, however, the question of employer-sponsored birth control has drawn the greatest condemnation.
A new NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll, however, found that most Americans oppose employers’ attempts to opt-out of the contraceptive mandate. Fifty-three percent of all respondents have indicated that employers should not be exempt from being required to offer birth control and contraceptives in their health plans, even if they have religious objections. These findings differed by age, political orientation and religious affiliation. For example, those aged 18 to 34 felt that there should be no exemptions, while seniors felt that religious objections should qualify for exemptions.
Likewise, 59 percent of Republicans favored religious exemptions, while 72 percent of Democrats opposed them. Among those that recognize religion as the single-most important thing in their lives, 70 percent favor exemption, but 79 percent of those who say that religion isn’t important to them opposed it.
The two cases that the court will hear on March 25 — Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius — have far-reaching implications. These cases represent the trial test for more than 90 other suits from Christian plaintiffs that are pending in the federal court system. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties both offer their employees comprehensive health insurance, but they refuse to pay for four specific contraceptives in the Affordable Care Act’s reimbursement package that they find to be immoral.
These contraceptives — the so-called “morning-after” and “week-after” pills and two different forms of intrauterine devices — meet the companies’ owners’ definitions of abortion, as they prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting into the uterine wall. The companies argue that the health care act creates a “substantial burden” because they are forced to choose between opposing their religious beliefs and paying a $100 a day per worker penalty for non-compliance. The companies also argue that they are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which offers broader legal protections against “substantial burdens” of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
The companies also argue that it is within reason for the government to offer contraceptive options to employees of religious objectors without the companies themselves being involved. As the government offers religious exemptions for religious organizations and churches, proponents of religious objections allege that the government already concedes the logic of such religious exemptions.
Opponents to exemption argue that the owners of the companies are imposing their religious beliefs onto workers who may not share them. The Obama administration has argued that the establishment of the mandate does not mean that a worker would be compelled to use contraception, only that it would be available to the worker.
They also contend that allowing such exemptions may undercut public health. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 10.7 million American women use oral contraceptives in the United States. Despite the wide use of birth control, almost half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unplanned, leading to a heightened risk of poor birth outcomes and an inadequate support system to care for the potential child.
In a letter published on the Religious Institute’s website, 47 religious leaders from across the Judeo-Christian-Islamic spectrum called for the removal of religious arguments from the debate about contraception.
“We affirm, in accordance with each of our faith traditions, that ensuring equal access to contraceptives through insurance coverage is a moral good. Including contraceptives as a covered service does not require anyone to use it; excluding contraceptive coverage for those who choose to plan and space their families with modern methods of birth control will effectively translate into coercive childbearing for many,” the clergy wrote.
“No single religious voice can speak for all faith traditions on contraception, nor should government take sides on religious differences. We call on our government to respect the beliefs and values of everyone’s faith by safeguarding equal access to contraception for those whose conscience leads them to use it.”