The federal government is making it easier for employers claiming “religious or moral objection” to opt out of providing health insurance that provides no-cost birth control to women. If this misguided move survives surfacing legal challenges, it could make it harder for more than 266,000 women in Hawaii to get access to birth control.
That’s the count of women statewide who are eligible for preventative services coverage with no consumer out-of-pocket costs. Nationwide, the tally is more than
62 million women.
The contraceptive coverage mandate — issued by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act — rightly removed cost as a barrier to the basic health matter of birth control. The return of that barrier on Friday, when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) rolled back the rule, undermines the importance of women’s health.
Defending the backtrack, a DHHS spokeswoman said: “No American should be forced to violate his or her own conscience in order to abide by the laws and regulations governing our health care system.” But that was not the case.
When the contraception rule took effect in 2012 it exempted churches, mosques and other houses of worship. Religious nonprofits were later added to the list. And in 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that closely held for-profit companies, such as the Hobby Lobby (an arts and crafts retailer) could also deny contraceptive coverage. The new rules push beyond these exemptions to effectively allow any business or organization to claim a religious or moral objection and opt out.
Also, a system under development through which employees could turn to a third party for coverage when an employer opts out is no longer envisioned as a reliable backup. Under the new rules, employers may deny access to that system, too.
The Trump administration’s new rules appear to be more about allowing employers to impose their beliefs on employees rather than upholding a right to religious expression. And the vague principle of moral objection raises a red flag. Our non-discrimination laws largely aim to protect us from undue discrimination tied to moral beliefs.
Washington state’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit in federal court that seeks an injunction to prevent immediate implementation of the new rules, contending they collide with the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.
The First Amendment stipulates that one religion cannot be favored over another. Further, it forbids “requiring individuals to bear the burdens of religions to which they do not belong,” according to the lawsuit. The suit also asserts that in violation of civil rights law, the new rules result in women having less access to reproductive health care, which is discrimination based on gender.
The Obama administration generally required employers to cover all forms of birth control approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including pills used to terminate an early pregnancy.
The handling of the so-called abortion pill known as Mifeprex, which can be dispensed only in clinics, hospitals and doctors’ offices (although administered at home), has touched off legal action because it’s not available on Kauai. Last week, Dr. Graham Chelius, chief medical officer for the Hawaii Health Services’ Kauai region, in tandem with the American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit in federal court contending that Mifeprex — used to end pregnancies of up 10 weeks — should be more accessible and be made available by prescription in pharmacies across the U.S.
The best way to avoid unwanted pregnancies, which can result in increased health care costs and strains on state budgets, is to make it as easy as possible for women to practice safe birth control.
The DHHS’s new rules don’t do that. They should be opposed for that reason — as well as because they set the stage for discrimination against women, which could prompt other kinds of discrimination in health coverage.
