My Turn: Supreme Court should protect contraceptive coverage

  • By CATRIONA REYNOLDS
  • Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:00am
  • Opinion

Two years after the Supreme Court ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby that closely held for-profit companies do not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement if the company’s owners have moral or religious objections, this important health benefit is going back to the high court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard Zubik v. Burwell, a challenge to the Obama administration’s accommodation for religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations that object to being required to providing contraceptive coverage for their employees. Under the accommodation, all they need to do is fill out a form stating their objection to opt out of having to provide coverage, and the insurance company provides the contraceptive coverage instead. But the groups challenging this accommodation argue that putting their objection in writing makes them party to something that goes against their beliefs.

Two years ago Hobby Lobby opened a dangerous door and now, with Zubik, these employers are trying to tear that door off its hinges — arguing the interests of employers far outweigh the health of their employees. Where do we draw the line between accommodating religious belief and protecting the health and rights of those impacted by such accommodation? With Zubik, some think they can erase the line. If the plaintiffs prevail, more women will lose their contraceptive coverage.

Plaintiffs argue that the accommodation is unacceptable because it is not the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. Plaintiffs have asserted that safety-net programs such as the Title X family planning program could simply step in to provide the coverage to which their employees are entitled by law. One of the nonprofit briefs even suggests redefining what it means to be “low-income” under Title X to include women who can’t get contraceptive coverage under their employer-based plan because their employer objects. That argument not only represents a misunderstanding of the program’s purpose and design, it’s foolhardy and dangerous.

Each year, 45 percent of all pregnancies in the United States are unintended. Regular use of contraception prevents unintended pregnancy, improves women’s health outcomes, and saves millions of dollars in health care costs. The Title X program was designed to meet the preventive health care needs of the millions of poor and low-income women and men who rely on it as their usual, and oftentimes sole, source of health care. In 2015, 88 percent of clients at Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic were low-income, 38 percent were uninsured and 19 percent received Medicaid. In 2013, 68 percent of clients were uninsured. We have worked diligently as Certified Application Counsellors to assist clients to enroll in Marketplace insurance and Medicaid.

While Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic provides care to anyone who comes through our doors, Title X was not designed nor is it funded to meet the contraceptive needs of women who otherwise have employer-based insurance coverage. Congress has never sufficiently funded the program to meet existing (and growing) need. At current funding levels, the program only serves about one third of the women in need of publicly funded family planning care in this country.

The Supreme Court should recognize that good reproductive health is only achieved when women are given full access to the family planning care and information they need to make the best decisions for themselves and the ones they love.

• Catriona Reynolds is the clinic manager for the Kachemak Bay Family Planning Clinic in Homer.

More in Opinion

Web
Have something to say?

Here’s how to add your voice to the conversation.

The Aiviq, a private icebreaker the U.S. Coast Guard is considering purchasing for Arctic operations with Juneau as its home port, is seen on March 24, 2012. (Courtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard)
Opinion: Giving credit where credit is due

It’s been a long time since the Juneau economy has been bolstered… Continue reading

Gus Schumacher, an Anchorage cross-country skier, testifies at a Senate Budget Committee hearing last Wednesday. (Budget committee screenshot)
An Alaska Olympian went to D.C. to testify on climate change. Then a senator dredged up old tweets.

Gus Schumacher hit with climate science quiz in exchange that went viral in conservative circles.

U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, second from right, attends a bill signing by President Donald Trump on Thursday, Oct. 11, 2018, in the Oval Office of the White House. (Official White House photo)
Opinion: Sen. Dan Sullivan, a conservative in name only

It’s easy to imagine Sen. Lisa Murkowski broke out in a smile… Continue reading

(Anne Onamuss / For the Juneau Empire)
My Turn: Alaska’s deepest trouble is nonsupport of education

People are exiting The Great Land and are reluctant to come here… Continue reading

The studio model of Starship “Enterprise” from Star Trek is on display at The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum on its reopening on Oct. 14, 2022, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Opinion: No Alaska governor has ever so boldly held schools and students as political hostages

“Star Trek” reference looks past real argument for school funding.

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Black-and-white view of Gaza goes too far

Alexander Dolitsky’s letter rebuffing Dixie Belcher’s attempt to humanize the tragedy unfolding… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: Murkowski and Sullivan should oppose Trump

The New York Times reported Saturday that Mr. Trump said, “some migrants… Continue reading

(Juneau Empire file photo)
Letter: If you see roadside rubbish, please pick it up

I met a young Tlingit lady and her friend this weekend, picking… Continue reading

Looking up at the 1882 Edward Webster House on Telephone Hill from Second Street and Main Street in January 2024. (Photo by Laurie Craig)
Opinion: Juneau Assembly holds firm on Telephone Hill development

In a rare moment of near unanimity during a special Assembly meeting… Continue reading