Oral contraceptives are now the most widely used form of contraception. In the U.S., the daily oral contraceptive pills have traditionally only been available with a prescription, but current legislative and advocacy efforts in some states have focused on broadening access to oral contraceptives by eliminating the requirement that women first have an in-person clinical visit. This factsheet provides an overview of oral contraception, discusses private insurance and Medicaid coverage, and reviews emerging strategies to promote and expand women’s access to oral contraceptives.
Featured Reproductive Health Resources
This fact sheet summarizes preventive services under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that could be impacted by the Trump administration, with a focus on the recommended services that are promulgated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA).
Fact Sheet See More
Related Reproductive Health Resources
- The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer
- Visualizing Health Policy: Intersection of State Abortion Policy and Clinical Practice
- Medicaid Coverage of Family Planning Benefits: Results from a State Survey
- The Hyde Amendment and Coverage for Abortion Services
- Private Insurance Coverage of Contraception
- How Does Where You Work Affect Your 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.
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.
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Zubik v. Burwell case, another challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this time to the contraceptive coverage requirement brought by nonprofit corporations. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated and charged case has taken on an additional question: …
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…
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.
Round 2 on the Legal Challenges to Contraceptive Coverage: Are Nonprofits “Substantially Burdened” by the “Accommodation”?
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires most private health insurance plans to provide coverage for a broad range of preventive services including Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved prescription contraceptives and services for women. Since the implementation of the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement in 2012, over 200 corporations have filed lawsuits claiming that including coverage for contraceptives or opting for an “accommodation” from the federal government violates their religious beliefs. This brief explains the legal issues raised by the nonprofit litigation and discusses the impact of the Hobby Lobby decision on the current litigation.