(MintPress) — As women throughout the country celebrate the elimination of co-pays for preventive medical care visits and services, companies morally opposed to contraception and sterilization are holding their breath in hopes that such provisions will be reversed.
While a reversal would free the consciousness of some business owners who oppose the provision on moral grounds, it would cause headaches among women, especially the 1.5 million Americans who use it explicitly for health-related reasons.
The provisions of the Affordable Care Act that kicked in Aug. 1 mandate insurance companies cover, without co-pays, contraceptives, well-woman visits, diabetes screenings, sexually transmitted infection and disease testing, breastfeeding support and counseling for domestic violence victims.
The government is arguing that eliminating co-pays for such preventative care measures will, in general, increase health among women by providing services and screenings necessary to prevent or catch illness early on. A report released by the Institute of Medicine of National Academies praises the new provisions, claiming it will fill a gap in women’s healthcare.
“As a centerpiece of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, the focus on preventative services is a profound shift from a reactive system that primarily responds to acute problems and urgent needs to one that helps foster optimal health and wellbeing,” the report states.
Yet not all Americans are pleased with the provisions, including businesses owners who see providing contraceptives as contrary to their beliefs and moral ground.
Organizations that operate with religion as a main purpose and primarily employ those who have the same religious values are exempt from this provision of the ACA, at least for one year. The Obama administration granted this temporary waiver after outcry by the Catholic Church. The exemption did not, however, apply for businesses owners.
Now some businesses and organizations have taken a strong stand, claiming that mandating them to pay for insurance packages that include birth control violates their right to religious freedom. At the front of this movement has been Hercules Industries, a business based in Colorado that specializes in air conditioning manufacturing.
The Colorado business is the only one that can, as of today, refuse health care that includes the cost of contraceptives, as it received a temporary reprieve after a U.S. District Court judge ruled the company had made a case that funding plans that included contraceptive coverage would violate their religious beliefs.
Their case is being looked at by Catholic organizations and other businesses in that same spot, as well as women who fear this could set a precedent that would result in expensive out-of-pocket costs for contraceptives that for some are merely a form of medicine, used to combat real health concerns.
The other ‘purpose’ of the pill
Not only used as a preventative for pregnancy, the birth control pill is prescribed by doctors throughout the nation for legitimate health concerns.
Guttmacher Institute conducted a study in 2011 revealing 14 percent of women prescribed a form of the birth control were taking the medication for strictly health-related reasons, and as a noncontraceptive — this accounts for 1.5 million women in the nation.
The study conducted by Guttmacher was comprised of national data from 2006-2008, collected by the National Survey of Family Growth, and also indicated that teenage girls make up a large portion of users who are prescribed the pill for medical reasons. In all, the survey showed that 762,000 women who are not and have never been sexually active take birth control pills for purely medical reasons, including both adults and teenagers.
The conditions the pill treats include dysmenorrhea, a form of debilitating menstrual pain that is often accompanied by flu-like symptoms, including nausea, headache and dizziness. The treatment of the birth control pill also apply to severe acne, endometriosis, uterine myomas, migraines and to decrease the risk of cancers, including endometrial and ovarian, according to the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health.
Aside from arguing the health benefits of contraceptives, Healthcare.gov, a website managed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, claims that the preventative services that kick in this month will do just that — prevent.
“Before health care reform, too many Americans didn’t get the preventative care they need to stay healthy, avoid or delay the onset of disease, lead productive lives and reduce healthcare costs” a press release on the site states.
What are the implications?
With courts granting reprieve for those who use the argument that they are religiously opposed, the question now is how far-reaching this defense will stretch. If an employer claims to be religiously opposed to anti-depressants, as some Christian sects are, will they also be successful in having the right to deny such coverage?
According to court documents, the reprieve was granted to Hercules after its lawyers successfully argued that implementing the provision of ACA would cause a threat of irreparable harm, which outweighs any harm to the “non-moving party,” or those on the receiving end — the women who would not be provided the healthcare without co-pay.
It is noted in the court documents that, prior to Aug. 1 and the ACA, Hercules had already implemented a health insurance plan that did not include contraceptive coverage.
While the legality of the cases are being debated in court and Congress, the atmosphere surrounding the job search is also likely to change. While the economy doesn’t necessarily lend to a pick-and-choose approach to employment, those faced with multiple job offers may make decisions based on the bottom line — do they refuse to provide the service some women need?
Twenty-two other companies are currently in similar lawsuits and are hoping the Hercules example will serve as a precedent for their case.