A newly-updated infographic from the Kaiser Family Foundation explains the final regulations on employer-based coverage of birth control released today by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. How Does Where You Work Affect Your Contraceptive Coverage? provides a clear explanation of coverage requirements under the new regulations for employers with…
- view as grid
- view as list
In the latest post in the Policy Insights series, Jen Kates, Josh Michaud, and Allison Valentine examine how rapid emergence of Zika virus in the Americas, and its association with a severe birth defect, impact women as some health officials are calling for women to avoid pregnancy even though they have limited reproductive health access in some of the affected countries. They also examine the role of the U.S. government in addressing Zika and its impact on women in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The rapid spread of the Zika virus in the Latin America and the Caribbean region, the appearances of cases of Zika in the United States, and the association between Zika infection and serious birth defects has generated attention and concern among the public, policymakers, and the media. The WHO declared…
Contraceptive Coverage at the Supreme Court Zubik v. Burwell: Does the Law Accommodate or Burden Nonprofits’ Religious Beliefs?
This brief explains the legal issues raised by Zubik v. Burwell and discusses the influence of the Hobby Lobby decision on the case before the Supreme Court and the potential impact of a tie decision.
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.
The March Kaiser Health Tracking Poll finds that health care is one of many issues that will be important to voters in the Presidential election, trailing concerns about the economy and jobs but leading concerns about immigration. Health care ranks higher for Democratic voters than for Republican and independent voters and is a higher priority for women than for men. Health care costs remain on the forefront of the minds of both the uninsured and voters, with nearly half of uninsured Americans saying that cost is the main reason they haven’t gotten health insurance and voters mentioning cost when asked what specifically about health care will affect their presidential vote. In light of the two women’s health cases before the Supreme Court, this month’s survey examines how the public, and women specifically, feel about the state of women’s reproductive health policy. About one-third of Americans say ‘there is a wide-scale effort to limit women’s reproductive health choices and services, such as abortion, family planning, and contraception’ and a majority of Democratic voters name Hillary Clinton as the candidate for president they trust to represent their view of women’s reproductive health choices and services, while Republican voters don’t coalesce around any one candidate.
About One Third of Americans Perceive Wide-Scale Effort to Limit Women’s Reproductive Health Choices and Services; Most Who Do Say the Effort is a ‘Bad Thing’ Health care is one of many issues that will be important for voters in the presidential election, particularly for Democrats and women, finds the…
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.
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.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services, including most contraceptives for women. This policy was at the center of a Supreme Court case brought forward by for-profit corporations (Hobby Lobby and Conestoga) that successfully claimed that the contraceptive coverage requirement violated their religious rights. Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to hear yet another challenge (Zubik v Burwell) to the contraceptive coverage requirement, this time brought by nonprofit corporations, claiming that the accommodation established by the federal government for religiously affiliated nonprofit employers with objections to contraception violates their religious rights.