Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Pro-Choice
Related: About this forumACA Birth Control Benefit Heads Back to the Supreme Court (the war on women continues apace)
ACA Birth Control Benefit Heads Back to the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today agreed to hear arguments from religiously affiliated non-profits challenging womens right to access insurance coverage for birth control under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The non-profits seeking to deny women employees access to birth control argue that the requirement to fill out a ONE-page form to receive an exemption from covering birth control places a substantial burden on their exercise of religion and violates Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Birth control is basic health care for women. These challenges are not about religion. There is no law in the United States that allows an employer, even a religiously-affiliated non-profit, to impose a religious belief on an employee, said Feminist Majority President Eleanor Smeal. Plain and simple, these cases are about sex discrimination and whether or not religion in the United States can still be used as a cover to discriminate against women. Will we have equal rights and democracy for everyone, or will we have democracy for men and theocracy for women?
Under the ACA, health insurance companies must cover the full cost of all FDA-approved contraceptives including the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception without requiring co-pays or cost-sharing. Religious employers, like churches, are already entirely exempt from this requirement. Religiously affiliated non-profits that object to providing birth control coverage to their employees are entitled to an accommodation that relieves them of their obligation to cover birth control.
To qualify for the accommodation, religiously affiliated non-profits must only inform their health insurance issuer, third party administrator, or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) via a simple government form that it objects to providing insurance coverage for birth control. At that point, these organizations are no longer required to play any role in providing or subsidizing birth control. The insurance issuer or third party administrator would be solely responsible for providing birth control benefits to affected employees. (heaven forfend that these woman-haters should spend one minute PROVING their hatred for women)
SEVEN federal appeals courts have ruled that it is not a violation of RFRA the for a religiously affiliated non-profit to fill out a form indicating that it objects to providing insurance coverage for birth control. Only one court, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, has sided with the non-profits.
. . . . .
http://feminist.org/blog/index.php/2015/11/06/aca-birth-control-benefit-heads-back-to-the-supreme-court/
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 1538 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
ACA Birth Control Benefit Heads Back to the Supreme Court (the war on women continues apace) (Original Post)
niyad
Nov 2015
OP
Happy to send this post to the Greatest Page, and the haters packin' (we hope) k&r, nt
appal_jack
Nov 2015
#3
still_one
(96,654 posts)1. The Supreme Court should have never heard this, and let the lower court
rulings and appeals stand
niyad
(120,272 posts)2. scotus has been doing a lot of really hateful, stupid things this century.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)3. Happy to send this post to the Greatest Page, and the haters packin' (we hope) k&r, nt