On Friday, a district court in Missouri rejected a case brought by a mining company challenging the federal birth control rule that requires employer health plans to cover contraception without a co-pay. The Missouri case is one of 30 pending, and it is the first case to be dismissed on the merits. It’s a tremendous victory for women, particularly those employed by the mining company.
Tuesday, a Nebraska federal court rejected a lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s rule requiring insurance plans to cover contraception. This was the first of two dozen challenges to be decided. We applaud the court’s decision and hope that the judges in the other cases follow the Nebraska federal judge’s lead.
President Obama yesterday released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2014. Here are five things you should know about how it affects reproductive rights:
Home Rule for the District of Columbia
As he has each year of his presidency, President Obama removed the D.C. abortion ban from his budget proposal. That ban prohibits the District of Columbia from using its own locally raised funds to pay for abortion care for low-income D.C. residents. By contrast, all other states are permitted to use non-federal revenues to pay for abortion care if they so choose.
By Becca Cadoff, Reproductive Freedom Project at 12:11pm
In the latest affront to women's health, Alabama Governor Robert Bentley signed into law a bill that could force health centers in the state to close their doors if they provide abortion care. We may not all see eye-to-eye about abortion, but most people agree that we all need access to health care without politicians getting in the way.
Isn't it time we are allowed to make our own decisions about our health care?
This bill is just another example of political attacks on women's health, following on the heels of North Dakota, Arkansas, and other state efforts to block access to abortion care. The trend of attacking women is snowballing out of control, and we need to stop it.
We've said it before and we'll say it again: the Obama administration's contraceptive coverage rule is a breakthrough for women's health, ensuring that millions of women will have access to affordable, effective contraception. But anti-family planning forces are waging an all-out campaign to prevent women from getting affordable access to this basic health care. They're claiming that your boss should be able to control your health care decisions.
Courts are making fast work this week of the lawsuits challenging the Obama administration’s rule requiring insurance plans to cover contraception and stop discriminating against women.
Just one day after a federal court in Nebraska threw out a lawsuit brought by seven anti-Affordable Care Act attorneys general, a federal court in D.C. did the same in a case filed by a religiously affiliated college. On Wednesday, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit filed by Belmont Abbey College (the first of the two dozen challenges to the birth control rule).
On this day in 1965, the Supreme Court first protected the right to contraception. A 7-2 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut was joined by justices appointed by Republicans and Democrats alike. It opened the door to a world in which people are free to form intimate relationships, lead healthy sexual lives, pursue educational and employment opportunities, and decide whether and when to become parents.
And yet now, 47 years later, contraception has become a hot button issue. Much of the recent discussion has consisted of rhetoric such as then-Presidential contender Rick Santorum’s statement that birth control is “not OK, because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be”, or the Alliance Defense Fund’s assertion that providing insurance coverage for contraception “propel[s] [us] down an anti-pregnancy path”. On this anniversary, let’s celebrate with the facts:
