Reproductive And Sexual Health Policies

Jones, R. K., & Kooistra, K. (2011). Abortion Incidence and Access to Services In the United States, 2008. Perspectives On Sexual & Reproductive Health, 43(1), 41-50. doi:10.1363/4304111

Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides healthcare and education to both men and women, having over 650 health centers that provide healthcare to countless communities around the world. Shockingly, 78% of those who use Planned Parenthoods services live at or below 150% of the federal poverty line, showing how important this organization is to low-income families (Topulos, Greene, Drazen). Their mission statement is “A Reason for Being”, which is shown through their efforts to provide health care, advocate public policies, create educational programs, and endorse research. There are those who do not believe Planned Parenthood should be funded by the government, though, due to the fact that they provide abortions to women in need. Studies show that the effects of not having Planned Parenthood available are disastrous, causing low-income families to lack a healthcare provider and the number of those who are infected with STD’s and STI’s to rise. The biggest concern communities have about the government defunding Planned Parenthood is the effects that it would have on low-income families who would no longer have access to something that many people take for granted: health care. Although many believe that Planned Parenthood mostly provides abortions, in reality, only 3% of the people that seek help from them receive an abortion, while 97% receive affordable and, in many cases,

Abortion policy has been shifting throughout American history as American views have simultaneously transitioned from more conservative to more liberal. Doctors, specifically regular physicians, have surprisingly guided the discussion surrounding abortion in the most influential way. Their power, in particular, their medical expertise, has allowed them to take hold of the issue and push against abortion from a medical stance. As a result of the change in traditionalistic views, the power the doctors held for a long time was taken by women, and abortion simultaneously became not an issue of health, but one questioning morality as well as a woman’s right to choose: pro-life and pro-choice. In America, abortion policy has transitioned from an issue of health and morality to one of women’s rights over time due to the power shifting from doctors to women as a result of modernization and the change in how Americans saw religion; this shift in turn impacting how the abortion issue’s sides are defined and how the issue is argued.

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.

In September 2012, Hobby Lobby filed suit against the U.S. government to exempt itself from the contraceptive mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Hobby Lobby’s owners are evangelical Christians who believe that the contraceptive mandate violates their religious beliefs; specifically, that life begins at conception when successful fertilization occurs within a prospective mother. Providing contraceptive measures, in Hobby Lobby’s view, would facilitate the abortion of a pregnancy, which most evangelicals equate to murder. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Hobby Lobby, along with all other closely held for-profit

As of recently, women have been talking about getting long term birth control or stocking up on Plan B. This is because they are worried the Trump will take away the articles in the Affordable Care Act that say that insurance companies must cover birth control, reproductive health and abortion funding. There are currently provisions in the ACA that allow women access to gynecological visits and birth control without having to pay a copay (Rinkunas, 2016). These provisions when originally passed because a number of businesses filed for exemptions so that they would not have to provide access to free contraception to women; specifically those who may have decided to use Plan B (the morning after pill). Some religious based businesses owners believe that preventing a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the uterus is the same as an abortion, and to them life begins at conception (Newton-Small, 2016). Many Catholic members of Obama’s Administration, including Vice President Joe Biden wanted to allow religious entities or groups the right to opt out of the program (Newton-Small, 2016). The women of the cabinet decided that they would

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott (2014), The American Civil Liberties Union, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and a Texas law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of several women’s health-care providers in Texas for seeking to enforce their rights and those of patients for declaratory judgment and pertaining to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs by enjoining two provisions of the 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2. (Planned Parent Hood v. Abbott, 2014). To many, Planned Parenthood challenges the state of Texas abortion law as it places an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It also

Over a hundred years later, Planned Parenthood still operates under the goal of providing comprehensive reproductive health care services to women. This provision of a full range of reproductive services has been deemed in a study by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and National Partnership for Women and Families to be “essential not only to their health and well-being but also to their ability to pursue an education, hold jobs, support their families, achieve economic security, and function as a free and equal member of society” (Lawrence). The study goes on to say that “without access to the full range of reproductive health services, all that is in jeopardy.” (Lawrence). Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to fulfill its mission of providing a full range of reproductive services if the current federal government achieves their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. Lawrence, the author of the study, also describes a need for “health care decisions based on patient’s health and needs rather than insurance coverage or payment capabilities.” An interesting point is presented here in that if Planned Parenthood concedes its abortion services, there is no guarantee that whatever organization fills in that gap will do so honestly. There is no other organization so committed to the concept of family planning and reproductive services that they do not run the risk of providing inadequate

On September 19, 2013 the supreme court saw the case of Hobby Lobby V.S Sebelius. If the courts agree with Hobby Lobby then millions of women are out of essential health care they need just because their employers don 't want to cover contraceptives. Even though congress made it clear that these laws made for religious freedom were made for individuals, religious institutions, and religious organizations. If corporations were given religious freedom, it does not necessarily mean that they will be given freedom from contraception requirements that do not burden religious freedom. All the health care plan was made for was to give women the health care they need for their well being.

I strongly agreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to exempt Hobby Lobby, and businesses like it, from the ACA mandates for covering certain forms of contraception. The contraceptives that are in dispute are argued to contribute to abortions, or termination of the pregnancy, after the fact. Due to these medications, and devices contributing to the termination of a pregnancy, it is vital that they be exempted. The termination of a pregnancy is a very divisive issue in America. Many hold that a life is being extinguished when the pregnancy is terminated. For this reason, it would be a violation of the Free Exercise Clause which violates such a closely held religious position about life. It does not, however, outlaw such products. People are free to exercise their rights, and obtain the medications, or devises elsewhere.

The subject of the ACA’s contraceptive mandate is a highly debated issue. Proponents argue that it serves to benefit women as well as society while opponents argue that it gives the state more power and infringes on religious rights and interests. Indeed, the major concern of this issue deals with the conflict between U.S. governmental program requirements (as stated in the ACA) and religious freedoms of religiously affiliated organizations. The ACA was made into federal law in 2010, having specific requirements that many organizations need to follow (more particularly in coverage by health insurance). However, there is a conflict of interest between the federal government and religious affiliated organizations (employers). It has been

The supreme court decision Roe V. Wade that legalized abortion in the United States was decided in 1973. Over 40 years later, abortion is still one of the most controversial issues in our society. What is it about a woman’s right to choose that is so polarizing for so many Americans? And what keeps this social issue at the forefront decade after decade? Religion. Religious beliefs and practices influence views on abortion. Individuals with higher levels of commitment to religious groups tend to oppose abortion at higher rates than those with lower levels of commitment (Liu, 2009). According to Pew Research, 54% of White evangelical protestants believe that abortion should be outright illegal. Amid those who believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases sixty-one percent attend church weekly, fifty-six percent say religion is very important and fifty-four percent have a certain belief in a personal God (Liu, 2013). With such statistics it is easy to see how influential the role of religion plays in those who believe abortion should be illegal. These statistics can be stretched even further to show that it is through group interactions, particularly in religious interactions, that women learn group beliefs. As a result, these beliefs impede a woman’s ability to choose. The choice to have an abortion is a constitutional right that every woman should be allowed to make at her own will. It should be her own merits and decision making that brings her

Women make up just slightly over half the U.S population (US Census Bureau, 2010) and should not be even considered a part of a minority group. The female population should acquire the same equal research attention as men do, especially when it comes to health issues. The unavoidable, yet quite simple realities of breastfeeding, menstruation, menopause, along with pregnancy require special scrutiny from medical experts. Those medical specialties are generally referred as gynecologists or obstetrics, who focus on the exclusive needs of a female’s reproductive health throughout their lifespan. Historically, the health needs of women have been disregarded as well as their fundamental rights. However, over the past few decades, it has grabbed the media and the government’s attention causing some major changes in support of women’s rights and health care.

Throughout the course of history, the field of healthcare has always been in a state of flux; however, healthcare has also had one steady aspect and that is women have always been at a disadvantage when it comes to traversing the system. Women have and still do face many obstacles within the health care system. These obstacles include research androcentrism, medicalization, gender stereotyping, reproductive rights, differential treatment, and fertility issues, among others… These obstacles must be explored and analyzed in order to better help women navigate the healthcare system and to support women’s rights in the present and future.