Commentary Contraception

So What’s the Deal with the New Contraception Mandate Rules?

Imani Gandy

I would argue that the new proposed rules don't change anything for women. At all. They don't restrict contraception access, nor do they take away contraception access previously available.

Rending of garments has already begun in certain sectors of the blogosphere over the Obama administration’s proposed new rules regarding the contraception mandate (or, as I like to call it, the “birth control benefit.” “Mandate,” I think, feeds into wingnut teeth-gnashing about the Big Bad Government forcing them to do Shit They Don’t Like.)

Conservatives are alternatively gloating about how Obama is throwing women under the bus, and whinging that the new rules are still an affront to Jesus. Michelle Malkin and the other numbskulls at Twitchy published a post entitled: “Contraception mandate: Obama administration turns its back on the Sandra Fluke crowd.” The clowns at WorldNet Daily are claiming that Obama “blinked.”

Timothy Dolan, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is unsatisfied because of course he is: “In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences.” (The regulations, of course, do no such thing, as I have written again and again and again and again.)

So, for all you fact-lovers out there, here’s the deal, in short. The new proposed rules don’t change anything for women. At all. They don’t restrict contraception access, nor do they take away contraception access previously available.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The new rules simply expand the compromise the Obama Administration made with the Catholic Bishops and other religious muckity mucks in February of last year. (Think Progress has a nice little chart explaining the differences in the language.)

The new rules simply cover more “religious employers” than were covered before (employers like Catholic hospitals, charities, and schools), and exempt these religious employers from dirtying their hands in the contraception hand-off between insurance companies and women. Women who want to gobble up slut pills can still get them without co-pay — it’s just that they will get them directly from the insurer:

Under the proposed accommodations, the eligible organizations would not have to contract, arrange, pay or refer for any contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds.

In addition, under the proposed accommodations, plan participants would receive contraceptive coverage through separate individual health insurance policies, without cost sharing or additional premiums. The issuer would work to ensure a seamless process for plan participants to receive contraceptive coverage.

The new rules also address self-insured organizations (like Tyndale Publishers):

With respect to self-insured group health plans, the eligible organization would notify the third party administrator, which in turn would automatically work with a health insurance issuer to provide separate, individual health insurance policies at no cost for participants. The costs of both the health insurance issuer and third party administrator would be offset by adjustments in Federally-facilitated Exchange user fees that insurers pay.

But what about students who attend religious schools like Notre Dame and Wheaton College? They’re covered, too:

The NPRM also proposes that an eligible religious non profit organization that is an institution of higher education that arranges for student health insurance coverage may avail itself of an accommodation comparable to that for an eligible organization that is an employer with an insured group health plan.

The bottom line is this: The new proposed rules do not restrict access to contraception, nor do they permit for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby and Newland Industries to avoid providing contraception coverage.

What the new rules do is render moot some of the nearly fifty birth control benefit lawsuits pending in courts around the country — Notre DameWheaton College, and Tyndale Publishers, to name a few.

Some have criticized the new rules. In a press release, Catholics for Choice president Jon O’Brien points out that the Obama Administration “did the right thing the wrong way”:

“Today the Obama Administration did the right thing the wrong way. According to the proposed rule, some women whose employers have a religious objection to providing contraception will still be able to get access through a third party provider.

“That’s the good news, but the proposed rule’s expansion of which employers can be exempted from providing comprehensive preventive healthcare, including contraception, is appalling. Women who work at Catholic schools, hospitals and social service agencies are wondering whether they’ll be able to get the same coverage as millions of other women, or if their healthcare just isn’t as important to the president as their bosses’ beliefs about sex and reproduction.

“It’s obvious that once again, the administration listened to the lobbyists for the Catholic bishops and their big business interests like Catholic healthcare, instead of Americans of every faith and of none who support the separation of religion and state and believe that public policy should not impose or privilege any religious viewpoint. Allowing such a wide exemption gives religious extremists carte blanche to trump the rights of others, based merely on the assertion of a belief about contraception even if that belief runs contrary to science or the widely-held convictions of co-religionists.

“While protecting contraceptive access under the ACA is a win for women, the administration’s caving in to lobbying from conservative religious pressure groups is a loss for everyone. American Catholics who support contraceptive coverage, who believe in the separation of church and state and who were hoping for change in Washington are disappointed today.”

I agree with that statement, and I don’t. From a practical standpoint, the Administration’s new rules allow the Obama Administration to fight the contraception battle on one front — against for-profit secular companies — while giving a pass to religious hospitals and schools. From a litigation standpoint, that’s not a small achievement. The new rules stem the litigation tide somewhat.

On the other hand, the Catholic lobby is never going to be satisfied (as evidenced by the fact that the Catholic Health Association was satisfied with the Obama Administration compromise in February 2012, and by June 2012, decided the compromise was an outrage), so perhaps President Obama should have just thrown up middle fingers at the Bishops and let the DOJ hash it out in court.

On the other other hand, the problem with the “middle finger” approach is this: Given the trajectory of the cases involving non-profit religious organizations (Notre Dame, Wheaton College, etc.), the government very well could have lost, resulting in bad legal outcomes in those “harder” cases that would effect the legal outcomes in the “easier” cases (Hobby LobbyO’BrienDomino’s Farms). Should Hobby Lobby be allowed to cry religious freedom? Absolutely not. Should religious schools like Notre Dame and Georgetown be so allowed? Eh. Maybe. I don’t think so, but I recognize that Notre Dame has a stronger argument than Hobby Lobby does.

From a litigation standpoint, therefore, it might be better to see how the RFRA and  Establishment Clause arguments will play out for secular companies; get a sense of how the courts are going to rule on such cases; then send a clean group of consolidated cases to SCOTUS, and see what happens.

All of this is to say that I’m on the fence, I guess: I understand why the Administration expanded the rules from a practical standpoint, but I also understand why activists like Sarah Posner of Religion Dispatches and Kaili Joy Gray of Daily Kos find the expansion problematic from a policy standpoint.

The one thing I’m not on the fence about, however, is this: Contraception has fuck-all to do with religious liberty. 


**The NPRM on women’s preventive services coverage is available here: http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx.

**For more information on women’s preventive services coverage, visit: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2011/08/womensprevention08012011a.htm.

News Sexual Health

State with Nation’s Highest Chlamydia Rate Enacts New Restrictions on Sex Ed

Nicole Knight Shine

By requiring sexual education instructors to be certified teachers, the Alaska legislature is targeting Planned Parenthood, which is the largest nonprofit provider of such educational services in the state.

Alaska is imposing a new hurdle on comprehensive sexual health education with a law restricting schools to only hiring certificated school teachers to teach or supervise sex ed classes.

The broad and controversial education bill, HB 156, became law Thursday night without the signature of Gov. Bill Walker, a former Republican who switched his party affiliation to Independent in 2014. HB 156 requires school boards to vet and approve sex ed materials and instructors, making sex ed the “most scrutinized subject in the state,” according to reproductive health advocates.

Republicans hold large majorities in both chambers of Alaska’s legislature.

Championing the restrictions was state Sen. Mike Dunleavy (R-Wasilla), who called sexuality a “new concept” during a Senate Education Committee meeting in April. Dunleavy added the restrictions to HB 156 after the failure of an earlier measure that barred abortion providers—meaning Planned Parenthood—from teaching sex ed.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Dunleavy has long targeted Planned Parenthood, the state’s largest nonprofit provider of sexual health education, calling its instruction “indoctrination.”

Meanwhile, advocates argue that evidence-based health education is sorely needed in a state that reported 787.5 cases of chlamydia per 100,000 people in 2014—the nation’s highest rate, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Surveillance Survey for that year.

Alaska’s teen pregnancy rate is higher than the national average.

The governor in a statement described his decision as a “very close call.”

“Given that this bill will have a broad and wide-ranging effect on education statewide, I have decided to allow HB 156 to become law without my signature,” Walker said.

Teachers, parents, and advocates had urged Walker to veto HB 156. Alaska’s 2016 Teacher of the Year, Amy Jo Meiners, took to Twitter following Walker’s announcement, writing, as reported by Juneau Empire, “This will cause such a burden on teachers [and] our partners in health education, including parents [and] health [professionals].”

An Anchorage parent and grandparent described her opposition to the bill in an op-ed, writing, “There is no doubt that HB 156 is designed to make it harder to access real sexual health education …. Although our state faces its largest budget crisis in history, certain members of the Legislature spent a lot of time worrying that teenagers are receiving information about their own bodies.”

Jessica Cler, Alaska public affairs manager with Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest and Hawaii, called Walker’s decision a “crushing blow for comprehensive and medically accurate sexual health education” in a statement.

She added that Walker’s “lack of action today has put the education of thousands of teens in Alaska at risk. This is designed to do one thing: Block students from accessing the sex education they need on safe sex and healthy relationships.”

The law follows the 2016 Legislative Round-up released this week by advocacy group Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. The report found that 63 percent of bills this year sought to improve sex ed, but more than a quarter undermined student rights or the quality of instruction by various means, including “promoting misinformation and an anti-abortion agenda.”

News Law and Policy

Court Blocks North Carolina’s ‘Discriminatory’ Voter ID Law

Imani Gandy

“[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision," Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court, describing the North Carolina GOP's voter ID law.

A unanimous panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down North Carolina’s elections law, holding that the Republican-held legislature had enacted the law with discriminatory intent to burden Black voters and that it therefore violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The ruling marks the latest defeat of voter ID laws passed by GOP-majority legislatures across the country.

“We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent,” Circuit Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the court.

HB 589 required in-person voters to show certain types of photo ID beginning in 2016, and either curtailed or reduced registration and voting access tools that Black voters disproportionately used, including an early voting period. Black voters also disproportionately lack photo IDs.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Republicans claimed that the law was intended to protect against voter fraud, which has proven exceedingly rare in Republican-led investigations. But voting rights advocates argue that the law was intended to disenfranchise Black and Latino voters.

The ruling marks a dramatic reversal of fortune for the U.S. Justice Department, the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters, which had asked the Fourth Circuit to review a lower court ruling against them.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Schroeder in April ruled that plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that the law hindered Black voters’ ability to exercise political power.

The Fourth Circuit disagreed.

“In holding that the legislature did not enact the challenged provisions with discriminatory intent, the court seems to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees,” Motz wrote. “This failure of perspective led the court to ignore critical facts bearing on legislative intent, including the inextricable link between race and politics in North Carolina.”

The Fourth Circuit noted that the Republican-dominated legislature passed the law in 2013, immediately following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Shelby v. Holder, which struck a key provision in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 4 is the coverage formula used to determine which states must get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice or the District Court for the District of Columbia before making any changes to election laws.

The day after the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Shelby, the Republican chairman of the Senate Rules Committee announced the North Carolina legislature’s intention to enact an “omnibus” election law, the appeals court noted. Before enacting the law, however, the Republican-dominated legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.

After receipt of the race data, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration, all of which disproportionately burdened Black voters.

“In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its actions, the State offered only meager justifications,” Motz continued. “[T]he new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision.”

The ruling comes a day after the Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, president of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP and one of the primary organizers of Moral Mondays, gave a rousing speech at the Democratic National Convention that brought convention goers to their feet.

During a protest on the first day of the trial, Barber told a crowd of about 3,500 people, “this is our Selma.”