Review: The Supreme Court Contraception Mandate Cases
Posted by on July 25, 2014 - 3:13pm

On March 25, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding challenges to the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act, with a decision expected to come down in late June. Here’s a rundown of the main aspects of this important case:

What is being challenged?

Under the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide employees with comprehensive health insurance, including a range of contraceptive methods for women. Organizations exempt from this mandate include small employers that are not required to provide any health insurance to employees, religious organizations and organizations with select insurance plans that were grandfathered in. Religiously-affiliated non-profit organizations may request exemptions as well. The main issue being decided is whether for-profit organizations can choose not to cover contraceptive care in health insurance plans based on religious objections. This comes down to the scope of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which currently does not apply to for-profit corporations.

Who is challenging the law?

The cases were brought by two for-profit corporations, that while not religious or religiously-affiliated, claim to operate based on religious principles. The corporations are Hobby Lobby, a craft store chain based in in Oklahoma City and owned by a Christian family, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a Pennsylvania-based company that makes wood cabinets and is owned by a Mennonite family.

Why is the law being challenged?

The corporations challenging the contraception mandate believe that certain forms of birth control drugs and devices, including the morning after pill and IUDs, are equivalent to abortion because they may prevent embryos from implanting in the uterus. As such, they believe that covering the cost of these forms of contraception makes the them complicit with abortion. The corporations do not oppose all forms of birth control, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, certain drugs and sterilization.

How is the administration defending the law?

Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., the current solicitor general who is representing the U.S. administration, has stated that the law offering comprehensive contraceptive care to women promotes public health and ensures equal access to healthcare for women. He also emphasized that it should be doctors, not employers, who should decide the best form of contraception for women. Additionally, a brief from the Guttmacher Institute points out that many women cannot afford highly effective forms of birth control, and so upholding the law will reduce unplanned pregnancy and abortions.

What are the potential outcomes and implications of the decision?

There are many ways the decision could go, each with varying repercussions. If the Supreme Court decides the RFRA does not cover for-profit organizations, it will end those organizations’ ability to challenge the contraception mandate based on religious beliefs. The Supreme Court could decide the RFRA does apply to for-profit organizations, but still rule on the side of the administration. This would be a less decisive win for the administration that would likely lead to more challenges. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, it will impact women’s access to affordable birth control, while opening the door to other religious objections raised by employers, such as hiring gay and lesbian individuals, or offering benefits to same sex spouses.

For more information, see the sources below:

Liptak, Adam. "Supreme Court Hears Cases on Contraception Rule."  The New York Times. 25 March 2014.
Totenberg, Nina. "Supreme Court Justices Divide by Gender in Hobby Lobby Contraception Case." NPR. 25 March 2014.
Fuller, Jaime.  "Here's What You Need to Know About the Hobby Lobby Case." The Washington Post. 24 March 2014.
"Health Care Law's 'Contraception Mandate' Reaches the Supreme Court."  Pew Research: Religion and Public Life Forum. 20 March 2014.

The Right to Contraception Coverage
Posted by on July 1, 2014 - 1:03pm

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that “requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom.” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. conceded that the government does have a “compelling interest in making sure women have access to contraception,” but that there are ways of providing that access without “violating the companies’ religious rights.”

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent put into words what many onlookers felt. Justice Ginsburg stated that requiring contraception coverage is vital to women’s health and reproductive freedom. Furthermore, Justice Ginsburg stated this may invite “for-profit entities to seek religious-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faiths,” including some medical procedures and drugs, vaccinations, and even blood transfusions—procedures which certain religions denounce. While there is no evidence yet to support this claim that corporations will begin splitting hairs over other medical procedures, it does raise important questions about where the line is drawn between business and religion.

Those who disagree with the Supreme Court decision state that requiring all insurance plans to include coverage for contraception improves not only public health, but also ensures that “women have equal access to health care services.” Therefore, this blow was particularly shocking. If other family-owned corporations follow this ruling, the cost for contraception coverage will likely become a barrier for many women. IUD’s, for instance, can coast more than $1,000 once medical exams, insertion, and follow-up visits are added—and it is likely that this may cost too much for some women to pay without insurance coverage.

While the full repercussions of this decision are not yet clear, it is important to develop protective measures that defend women’s healthcare and their access to a range of contraception options.

Source: The New York Times

Breast Cancer Genes Verdict a Triumph for Women
Posted by on June 19, 2013 - 8:56am

Geneticists, researchers, and patients joined in celebration over last week’s unanimous Supreme Court ruling involving the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, colloquially referred to as the “breast cancer genes.”  The Supreme Court ruled that Myriad Genetics could not patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 sequence of genes, because patents cannot be placed on that which is created organically in nature.  This decision opens the door for researchers outside of Myriad Genetics to study these genes, providing more opportunities to discover early signs of breast cancer susceptibility.  Karuna Jaggar, Breast Cancer Action’s Executive Director reported that this ruling was, “a tremendous victory for women with a known or suspected inherited risk of breast cancer. Today, the Court righted a wrong and has put patients’ health before corporate profits.”

Prior to this ruling, bio-tech conglomerate, Myriad Genetics, held patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, monopolizing the research that can be done on these genes, which are strong indicators of susceptibility to breast cancer. Myriad had used their patents to come up with its BRACAnalysis test, which searches for specific mutations in these cancer predisposition genes.  Women who show these mutations have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer.  Myriad’s previously established patents on these genes gave them exclusive rights to use this genetic test on these genes.  Now that the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are open to outside researchers, scientists can use these genes to determine increased risks of patients who may develop breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other cancers that these genes may help indicate.

Angelina Jolie recently made headlines for deciding to voluntarily undergo a double mastectomy after learning of her own BRCA genes' mutations.  Jolie had paid a high price for this test, since Myriad had a monopoly on the market, driving up the cost.  So what does this mean for the average, non-Angelina Jolie woman? Well, now this test will be widely available for more women at a more affordable price (we don’t all have as deep of pockets as Jolie).  This ruling will not only open the door for more opportunities for preventative screenings for breast cancer, but it will set a precedent for the scientific community to collaborate on research towards the common good.

For more information on this court ruling, please refer to this posts's sources found here and here.

 

What does the Supreme Court Decision mean to women?
Posted by on June 28, 2012 - 1:28pm

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the health care law (Affordable Care Act) will keep in place important benefits to women:

  • Women will no longer  be charged more than men for the same health coverage  by insurance companies because women use more health services (preexisting conditions??)
  • Preventive health services like mammograms, birth control, and well women visits will be covered without a co-pay or deductible.
  • Women will no longer be denied health coverage for having survived domestic violence or rape, or having had a Caesarean section.
  • Maternity care will be included in all health care plans.
  • Low income and underserved women will gain financial access to coverage, whether through the Medicaid program or help with insurance premiums.

While the opponents to ACA will turn this into a political battle, the Supreme Court has added credence to the need to create a health care system that benefits all people.  Hopefully, our country's leadership will spend more time on improving this Act rather than spending energy tearing it apart and pandering political rhetoric.