Contraception Within The Affordable Care Act

Healthcare professionals are faced with a multitude of ethical and legal conundrums. Since the introduction of birth control in American history, healthcare professionals have been put in situations to either follow their own moral and ethical beliefs, or choose to follow the law and give healthcare services to those who seek it. A large constituent to the disapproval of contraceptives other than natural family planning, is health professional’s religious beliefs. In addition, Adolescent females who need contraceptives are less likely to seek access to health care providers for these contraceptives in fear of personal information due to their age being released. Through the research provided, cases of pharmacist denial of prescribed or over the counter contraceptives to women have been the majority of conflict in this nation and in others.

First I will like to discuss the effect this decision made on an organization. It is important, because this organization is a large vehicle to the effort of birth control. Planned Parenthood, is an organization which offer its services to help family control pregnancies, counsels young woman on abortion, and it 's a lead voice in protection of the body of the female over the offspring. I will continue with Planned Parenthood expansion, while I explained the consequences of the precedent established by Griswold v. Connecticut in subsequent landmark cases.

The battle for reproductive rights began well over a hundred years ago. At a time when families were producing more children than they could afford to feed, many women were seeking primitive forms of birth control and undergoing abortions. It was in the 1860s that a postal inspector turned politician named Anthony Comstock, in partnership with the Young Men’s Christian Association, set out on a crusade to condemn all forms of birth control and any kind of abortion by claiming they violated “anti-obscenity laws” (Baer). These men eventually succeeded and created the Comstock Laws in 1873 that prohibited all “sales, advertising, or information on birth control” (Baer).

The contraceptive coverage in the new Health Care law makes preventative care more accessible and affordable to millions of Americans. This is particularly important for women who are more likely to avoid the cost of contraceptives because of cost. To help address these barriers in terms of cost and ensure that all women have access to preventative Health Care Act, all new private insurance plan that covers a wide range of preventative services such as breast x-rays, pap smears smoking prevention and contraception without co-payments or requirements for sharing other costs. The current problem is that the Affordable Care Act is imposing on the 500 store chains of Hobby Lobby’s religious rights by forcing the company to provide full coverage of contraceptives of the 13,000 workers as part of its health care plans. David Green and family, whom founded Hobby Lobby, believe that the healthcare act is violating their held religious convictions.

That stipulation opened the door for the recognition of corporations having personhood in matters of free speech (First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 1978 and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 2010). These events made the recognition of corporate freedom of religion inevitable, and it became reality with the Burwell decision when the majority

Birth control has been a controversial topic since the 1960’s, when the pill arose on the scene and gained popularity. Men and women of certain religious faiths have sought to prevent other women from using birth control. However, most women want to be able to choose when the time is right for them to have a child. This is why birth control is essential, because it allows women and couples in general the freedom to choose and plan their families. In many cases the need to control women by controlling their access to birth control goes all the way to the federal government. The federal government determines what types of birth control are allowed on the market and who has access to them. Some Presidential administrations look more kindly

In Griswold v. Connecticut: Birth Control and the Constitutional Right of Privacy, Johnson outlines the struggle to overturn an 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law while arguing for the right of privacy. In the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, attorney Thomas Emerson argued that the “anticontraception statutes denied Griswold and Buxton their right to liberty and property without due process of law, as guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Furthermore, in constructing the constitutional right of privacy, Emerson cited the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Then, in the Supreme Court’s 1965 majority opinion, Justice William Douglas stated that “The First Amendment… has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion.” He went on to elaborate that the 1897 Connecticut anticontraception law was unconstitutional because “a law such as Section 53-32 that attempts to punish the mere use of contraceptives ‘sweep[s] unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade[s] the area of protected freedoms.’” Therefore, Griswold was finally able to achieve a fight that had begun fifty years prior.

Galloway (2013), Galloway argued that the town of Greece violated the establishment clause. The establishment clause within the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that the national government is unable to establish an official religion. In this court case, it was ruled that the prayers at the town hall did not violate the establishment clause. The basis for this ruling had to do with tradition. In the case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2013), the Green family had to provide health care to their employees under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ruling for this case was that the religious beliefs of the Green family are a factor that can let them deny health care to employees that have different religious beliefs. With a five to four ruling, the Hobby Lobby Stores won the case. These two cases show how Freedom of Religion can be used

A detailed study of the arguments from both sides clearly delineates an ideological battle rooted more in suspicion than on facts. While both sides seem to have a common ground about the need of ‘birth control’ services in cases of rape, incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother; the prospect of the discretionary nature of the utilization of these services makes the religious groups go up in arms. It seems a bit challenging to come up with public policies, laws and administrative rules based on exemptions while considering the larger picture of the society as a whole; the usage of those services can be kept optional. If the individuals or organizations do not wish to/will not use the ‘birth control’ coverage of the health plans on their own volition, no government can force them to do so. However, if they do not possess the coverage at all, it is almost impossible to procure those funds in grave circumstances where the ‘birth control’ procedures have to be performed in certain exempt cases as stated above. Taking the analogy of a software application designed for a broader market/industry but configurable to meet the needs of an individual company; the ACA should be taken as such. Any employer unwilling to utilize certain services under the coverage due to religious reasons or otherwise should be allowed to do so without any additional penalties if all the employees

Recently in California, there is some controversy around the Reproductive FACT act (Chemerinsky, 2015). This act requires healthcare facilities to have displayed or posted the public programs, which can provide immediate free or low cost family planning services, which include contraception, abortion, pre-natal care and more. There are non-profits and other organizations saying this is an infringement of their first amendment rights. It is argued that they have no ground on this stance because they are not being asked to perform or advocate for these services, but their patients need to have access to such information. This also is not singling out religious groups it applies to all healthcare facilities (Chemerinsky, 2015). This is very scandalous

The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

Not all of the following information came directly from me but will be cited for the research I have done.

The refusal of some health insurers to include contraceptives as a part of an insurance plan for women is one of the most contentious disagreements in the health insurance industry. Insurance plans today cover a variety of prescription drugs, however some still do not approve of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. More than half of U.S. states insurance policies require that other prescription drugs along with the FDA approved contraceptive drugs and devices be included on their health care plans, as well as any related medical services. These services entitle, annual visits for womens recommended preventive care and services. Although depending on individual state policies, some states allow employers or insurers to refuse

In 2012, amid much controversy, the Obama Administration effected the Contraception Coverage policy within the ACA which stated that organizations and insurers were to provide free contraceptive coverage for women across the nation. By doing so, the goal was

Health care and what people are legally allowed to do with their bodies have created controversy galore throughout history. A particular point of debate is the topic of birth control and the government. A dangerous couple, it raises the question of who should have control over contraceptive laws and what controls involving them should be put in place? Currently, under the Obama Administration, the Affordable Care Act and “Obamacare” have been created. One of the sections of this new plan creates a mandate which requires private businesses to provide insurance that covers birth control costs. The government should not be able to force businesses, and therefore the American people, to pay for birth control via health insurance because it