In yet another blow to women’s health and reproductive rights, President Trump has officially reversed the Obama-era mandate requiring employers to include birth control coverage in insurance plans. On Friday, October 6, President Trump announced that employers, including colleges and universities that provide health insurance to students and employees, would now have the right to withhold birth control coverage on the basis of a “sincerely held religious or moral objection”, effective immediately. While the Trump administration is calling this reversal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate a triumph for religious freedom, it is important to note that this rollback is not entirely based on religion.
After the 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case, for-profit institutions could withhold birth control coverage on religious grounds. The ACA ensured other means of birth control coverage for women denied such coverage through their insurance for religious reasons. The reversal of the ACA birth control mandate, however, has expanded employers’ possible reasons for objecting to contraceptive coverage to both religious and moral objections. Further, employers do not need to notify the government of their objection to birth control coverage, and simply need to notify their employees of the insurance change.
Further frustration is caused by the administration’s faulty reasoning behind this mandate reversal. One of the chief authors of the new rules is Matthew Bowman of the Health and Human Services Department, a man known for his anti-choice and anti-birth control advocacy. In the past, Bowman has argued that the birth control mandate could “spread measles” and that emergency contraception and even IUDs “cause abortions.” The administration’s argument for the new rules is grossly misinformed, citing some of the most baseless arguments used by anti-contraceptive advocates, including that access to birth control promotes “risky sexual behavior” among teens– a statement that his been disproven.
The implications and effects of this reversal are vast. According to Planned Parenthood, this could affect up to 62 million women who previously had access to free birth control through the ACA. The National Women’s Law Center calculated that the original mandate saved women an estimated $1.4 billion on birth control pills alone in 2013. Along with this, birth control has many uses beyond preventing pregnancy including the treatment of irregular or painful periods, endometriosis, PCOS, and other health issues involving the reproductive system. Denying women birth control could cause a variety of health problems not even related to pregnancy.
The mandate reversal has already sparked outrage. Many groups are considering legal challenges and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit, claiming that the new rules are “blatantly unconstitutional”. However, with Justices such as Trump-appointed Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, who ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby in a 2013 Court of Appeals case, it is very possible that the new exemption rules would be upheld in the Supreme Court.
As if this wasn’t enough of an attack on women’s reproductive rights for one week, on Tuesday, October 3, the House passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. This Act would criminalize most abortions after 20 weeks, with the exception of cases involving rape or incest or when the mother’s life is at risk. This bill would affect those involved in the performing of the abortion, not the female patient herself. Started by republican Arizona Representative Trent Franks, this Act was previously brought to the floor in 2015, but failed to pass in the Senate.
The bill is based on the advocates’ belief that a fetus can experience the sensation of pain at the 20-week gestation period. However, the Journal of the American Medical Association published findings showing that fetuses likely cannot experience pain until the third trimester, when the necessary nervous system components develop. These findings are agreed upon by many reputable medical sources such as the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Luckily, with only 52 Republican senators, it is unlikely that the bill will pass in the Senate with the necessary 60 votes. But the passage of such a controversial abortion bill based on junk science is definitely reason for alarm.
By: Cianna Allen