In this Medium post, Alina Salganicoff outlines the legal arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell and discusses what the case could mean for contraceptive coverage.
- view as grid
- view as list
In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.
Web Briefing for Media – The Supreme Court, Birth Control, and Religious Freedom: Implications of Zubik v. Burwell
On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Zubik v. Burwell, legal challenges brought by nonprofit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The 2014 Hobby Lobby decision established that certain firms with religious beliefs should be relieved of the requirement of paying for contraceptive coverage. In this case, religious nonprofits are objecting to the regulations that the Obama Administration has developed to accommodate their religious objections to birth control, claiming it still burdens their religious beliefs. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated case has taken on yet an additional question. Given that the Court will be operating with only 8 Justices, what would be the impact of a tie (4-4) decision? To address the legal and policy questions raised by the case, the Kaiser Family Foundation will hold an interactive web briefing exclusively for journalists.
This short fact sheet answers questions about how where a woman works may affect the contraceptive coverage she may receive.
Following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision, the Affordable Care Act could use a break from the intense political heat, though it may not get a long one as the 2016 election season heats up and presidential candidates play to their bases on health care, writes Drew Altman in…
Following the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell decision, the Affordable Care Act could use a break from the intense political heat, though it may not get a long one as the 2016 election season heats up and presidential candidates play to their bases on health care, writes Drew Altman in his latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank.
Poll Finds 62% of Americans Approve of the Supreme Court’s Decision to Continue Allowing ACA Health Insurance Subsidies in All States, While 32% Disapprove
Public’s View of the Health Care Law Remains Nearly Evenly Divided Immediately Following King v. Burwell Ruling Nearly Eight in 10 Americans Expect More Major Battles about the ACA in the Future Just over six in 10 Americans (62%) say they approve of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week…
The latest Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that when told that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to keep the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as it is, allowing subsidies to be provided to low- and moderate-income people in all states regardless of who runs their Marketplace, about 6 in 10 say they approve of the decision while about a third disapprove. The King v. Burwell ruling does not appear to have had an immediate effect on the public’s overall views of the health law. Still, most Americans do not think the ACA has cleared its last big hurdle with the June 25 Supreme Court ruling; just 18 percent think the King v. Burwell case was the last major battle over the ACA, while nearly 8 in 10 think there will be more to come.
With the Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell upholding the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidies, Drew Altman’s column in The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank explores what the decision means and what’s next for the health law.
With a Supreme Court decision on King v. Burwell looming, Drew Altman’s latest column for The Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank plays out the politics of a ruling for the two major parties. All previous columns by Drew Altman are available.