SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Hands Off My Birth Control': Activists Demand US Supreme Court Protect Women's Health
'Denying any woman the healthcare she needs and is guaranteed by law is discrimination, plain and simple'
Mar 23, 2016
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Wednesday in Zubik v. Burwell, a reproductive rights case with high stakes and implications "far beyond the realm of reproductive healthcare," as ProPublica observed.
| #HandsOffMyBC Tweets |
In a case reminiscent of Hobby Lobby's successful suit that permitted the for-profit corporation to refuse its employees healthcare coverage for birth control, in Zubik v. Burwell religious organizations argue that allowing their female employees to access birth control--even birth control provided by a third party--violates their religious rights.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits religious groups to opt-out of the healthcare law's requirement that employer-provided health insurance cover birth control. All that religious organizations need to do to opt-out is to fill out a simple form.
And yet in Zubik v. Burwell the religious groups "claim that the requirement to complete a one-page form stating their objection to birth control coverage is an impermissible burden on their religious beliefs," noted the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement.
"Access to affordable contraception is essential to women's equality and economic security. Denying any woman the health care she needs and is guaranteed by law is discrimination, plain and simple," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The burdens a woman faces when she is denied access to affordable contraception and reproductive health care vastly outweigh the negligible task of filling out a one-page form."
In an amicus brief (pdf) filed on behalf of the federal government by the Center for Reproductive Rights,international law experts argue that a decision in favor of the religious non-profits will make the United States an "international outlier."
"International authorities have long noted the critical importance of access to contraception," the brief observes.
Indeed, the argument presented in Zubik v. Burwell has "grave implications for the constitution and for American women," said American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) deputy legal director Louise Melling in a press statement. "The question is, will the Court sanction the use of religion to discriminate?"
"A ruling in favor of the religious nonprofits would not only undermine key provisions of the ACA; it could also lead to challenges to laws meant to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination," warned Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center, in an interview with ProPublica.
The religious non-profits' argument in Zubik v. Burwell marks "an unprecedented challenge to the very process by which a religious objector gets out of complying with the law," Borchelt noted to ProPublica. "This is something we have not seen before."
Reproductive rights activists are rallying outside of the Supreme Court and tweeting their opposition to this latest threat to women's healthcare under the hashtag #HandsOffMyBC.
"I still can't believe both birth control and abortion are before the Supreme Court this term," lamented MSNBC reporter Irin Carmon in a tweet. Activists have noted that this latest threat to women's health comes only three weeks after the Supreme Court heard a case with the potential to"dramatically alter" abortion access nationwide.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Wednesday in Zubik v. Burwell, a reproductive rights case with high stakes and implications "far beyond the realm of reproductive healthcare," as ProPublica observed.
| #HandsOffMyBC Tweets |
In a case reminiscent of Hobby Lobby's successful suit that permitted the for-profit corporation to refuse its employees healthcare coverage for birth control, in Zubik v. Burwell religious organizations argue that allowing their female employees to access birth control--even birth control provided by a third party--violates their religious rights.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits religious groups to opt-out of the healthcare law's requirement that employer-provided health insurance cover birth control. All that religious organizations need to do to opt-out is to fill out a simple form.
And yet in Zubik v. Burwell the religious groups "claim that the requirement to complete a one-page form stating their objection to birth control coverage is an impermissible burden on their religious beliefs," noted the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement.
"Access to affordable contraception is essential to women's equality and economic security. Denying any woman the health care she needs and is guaranteed by law is discrimination, plain and simple," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The burdens a woman faces when she is denied access to affordable contraception and reproductive health care vastly outweigh the negligible task of filling out a one-page form."
In an amicus brief (pdf) filed on behalf of the federal government by the Center for Reproductive Rights,international law experts argue that a decision in favor of the religious non-profits will make the United States an "international outlier."
"International authorities have long noted the critical importance of access to contraception," the brief observes.
Indeed, the argument presented in Zubik v. Burwell has "grave implications for the constitution and for American women," said American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) deputy legal director Louise Melling in a press statement. "The question is, will the Court sanction the use of religion to discriminate?"
"A ruling in favor of the religious nonprofits would not only undermine key provisions of the ACA; it could also lead to challenges to laws meant to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination," warned Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center, in an interview with ProPublica.
The religious non-profits' argument in Zubik v. Burwell marks "an unprecedented challenge to the very process by which a religious objector gets out of complying with the law," Borchelt noted to ProPublica. "This is something we have not seen before."
Reproductive rights activists are rallying outside of the Supreme Court and tweeting their opposition to this latest threat to women's healthcare under the hashtag #HandsOffMyBC.
"I still can't believe both birth control and abortion are before the Supreme Court this term," lamented MSNBC reporter Irin Carmon in a tweet. Activists have noted that this latest threat to women's health comes only three weeks after the Supreme Court heard a case with the potential to"dramatically alter" abortion access nationwide.
The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on Wednesday in Zubik v. Burwell, a reproductive rights case with high stakes and implications "far beyond the realm of reproductive healthcare," as ProPublica observed.
| #HandsOffMyBC Tweets |
In a case reminiscent of Hobby Lobby's successful suit that permitted the for-profit corporation to refuse its employees healthcare coverage for birth control, in Zubik v. Burwell religious organizations argue that allowing their female employees to access birth control--even birth control provided by a third party--violates their religious rights.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) permits religious groups to opt-out of the healthcare law's requirement that employer-provided health insurance cover birth control. All that religious organizations need to do to opt-out is to fill out a simple form.
And yet in Zubik v. Burwell the religious groups "claim that the requirement to complete a one-page form stating their objection to birth control coverage is an impermissible burden on their religious beliefs," noted the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement.
"Access to affordable contraception is essential to women's equality and economic security. Denying any woman the health care she needs and is guaranteed by law is discrimination, plain and simple," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "The burdens a woman faces when she is denied access to affordable contraception and reproductive health care vastly outweigh the negligible task of filling out a one-page form."
In an amicus brief (pdf) filed on behalf of the federal government by the Center for Reproductive Rights,international law experts argue that a decision in favor of the religious non-profits will make the United States an "international outlier."
"International authorities have long noted the critical importance of access to contraception," the brief observes.
Indeed, the argument presented in Zubik v. Burwell has "grave implications for the constitution and for American women," said American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) deputy legal director Louise Melling in a press statement. "The question is, will the Court sanction the use of religion to discriminate?"
"A ruling in favor of the religious nonprofits would not only undermine key provisions of the ACA; it could also lead to challenges to laws meant to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination," warned Gretchen Borchelt, vice president for reproductive rights and health at the National Women's Law Center, in an interview with ProPublica.
The religious non-profits' argument in Zubik v. Burwell marks "an unprecedented challenge to the very process by which a religious objector gets out of complying with the law," Borchelt noted to ProPublica. "This is something we have not seen before."
Reproductive rights activists are rallying outside of the Supreme Court and tweeting their opposition to this latest threat to women's healthcare under the hashtag #HandsOffMyBC.
"I still can't believe both birth control and abortion are before the Supreme Court this term," lamented MSNBC reporter Irin Carmon in a tweet. Activists have noted that this latest threat to women's health comes only three weeks after the Supreme Court heard a case with the potential to"dramatically alter" abortion access nationwide.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.