Commentary Contraception

The Obama Administration Should Stop Bending to the Religious Right’s Will

Imani Gandy

With the release of yet another set of interim final regulations on Friday, the Obama administration has ostensibly provided another option for eligible organizations to avail themselves of the birth control accommodation. But in reality, what the administration has done is shot itself in the foot—again.

Read more of our coverage on the Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood cases here.

The Obama administration has consistently bent over backwards in its efforts to appease the religious liberty concerns of employers who complain that the birth control benefit and the existing workaround are violations of their religious faith. And on Friday, with the release of yet another set of interim final regulations, the Obama administration has ostensibly provided another option for eligible organizations to avail themselves of the accommodation. But in reality, what the administration has done is shot itself in the foot—again.

What exactly is the Obama administration’s strategy here? To keep offering more and more accommodations—more and more compromises in the hopes that religious objectors to contraceptive coverage will be mollified?

If history is any indication, that’s not going to happen any time soon.

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

As any good negotiator will tell you, when you’re in a negotiation with an obstinate party, it is important to assess the goals of that party and come up with a strategy for making sure that you get what you want. This is called a “concession strategy.” If one party to a negotiation is immovable and the other party is a pushover, the immovable party will inevitably walk away having gotten everything they want while the pushover is left with nothing.

Usually, pushovers are so eager to make a deal that they begin the negotiation without a concession strategy; they will offer a deal, and when it is rejected they will immediately concede their position and offer another deal. When that deal is rejected, pushovers will concede their position again and again until there’s nothing left to concede.

In the battle between the Obama administration and the religious right, the Obama administration is the pushover, and the religious right is the immovable party.

The Department of Health and Human Services has made concession after concession in an effort to ensure all women have access to affordable birth control, while the religious right has remained immovable, demanding acknowledgement of their religious beliefs above the health, well-being, and rights of women.

Friday’s concession—detailed here by my colleague Jessica Mason Pieklo—is no different.

In a traditional negotiation, the concessions being made harm the party making them. In the case of the birth control benefit, however, the concessions that the Obama administration keeps making aren’t really harming the Obama administration itself—they are harming the women that the policy is intended to benefit.

For two years, the administration has attempted to work in its own version of good faith with religious objectors—primarily the religious right and the Catholic bishops—who claim that requiring employers to provide birth control to their employees violates the religious faith of those employers. And for two years, these religious objectors have remained unsatisfied with each and every concession offered to them, even when those concessions were originally suggested by the religious objectors themselves.

After an outcry by the religious right and the Catholic lobby when the birth control benefit was first announced back in February 2012, the administration’s willingness to work with these religious objectors and to take their religious feelings into account seemed like a good idea, at least politically.

The 2012 presidential election was less than a year away, and Republicans were busy trying to fire up their base by accusing President Obama of waging a war on religion.

In March 2011—a few months before he jumped into the presidential race—Newt Gingrich, who had been yowling about President Obama’s supposed anti-colonial views, warned thousands of evangelical churchgoers that Christianity was under attack and that the country was on the road to domination by secular atheists and radical Islamists.

In early December 2011, Republican presidential nominee Rick Perry released a truly ridiculous television ad, in which he bemoaned the fact that gays can serve openly in the military but kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school, and pledged to end Obama’s “war on religion.”

Later that month, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops took out full-page ads in the Washington Post and New York Times in which 151 Catholic leaders of all stripes responded to the HHS “Preventive Services” Mandate—scare quotes and all—and demanded that the Obama administration protect conscience rights.

A day after that, a large group of “pro-life,” evangelical, and other leaders of faith-based organizations joined the fray to let the administration know it wasn’t just Catholic organizations that were opposed to the birth control benefit; they, too, feared infringement on their religious freedoms.

The Obama administration was being slammed by claims from Catholics and evangelical Christians alike that its contraception policy demonstrated that the administration was hostile to religion. And at the time, with headlines like “Catholic Church vs. Obama in Election Year Showdown” saturating the news cycle, doing something—anything—to appear respectful of religious freedom while at the same time making certain its policy of ensuring that women would have access to preventive services, including contraception, without co-pay seemed like the best course of action for the administration.

And so the administration blinked. It crafted an accommodation for religious objectors and set itself up for a series of legal disasters that would follow.

Under the accommodation, certain religious groups who oppose providing contraceptive coverage can simply hand that job over to their insurance companies after declaring their religious opposition by filling out a form—Form 700.

This accommodation seemed sensible enough. Unfortunately, it initially satisfied some religious groups but not others.

The Catholic Health Association (CHA), which represents over 600 hospitals and 1,400 other health facilities, and is the largest group of nonprofit health-care providers in the United States was appeased. “The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions,” said the group’s president and CEO, Carol Keenan, when the accommodation was first announced in February 2012.

Four months later, however, the CHA did an about-face: It sent a five-page letter to the Department of Health and Human Services opposing the compromise.

The Catholic bishops, on the other hand, remained stalwartly opposed to the compromise throughout the Obama administration’s attempt to negotiate a compromise that would appease all involved parties, claiming that compliance with the accommodation would be “material cooperation with evil.”

According to the bishops, it doesn’t matter whether you’re taking birth control, providing birth control to women, or facilitating some process by which birth control is provided to women; all of these violate the Catholic faith, no matter how distant or uninvolved the Bishops are from “the act.” Never mind that, according to the Guttmacher Institute, 98 percent of Catholic women ages 15 to 44 who have had sex have used a contraceptive method other than natural planning, 68 percent of Catholic women and 74 percent of Evangelical women use “highly effective” methods of birth control—sterilization, hormonal birth control, or intrauterine device (IUD)—and 69 percent of women of all religious faiths use such highly effective methods.

Ultimately, the religious right’s staunch opposition to contraception does not reflect the reality of its use among women, some of whom work for the very organizations that are seeking to deny them the birth control benefit.

To date, 65 cases challenging the accommodation have been filed by non-Catholic and Catholic religious organizations, many of which receive federal funds and/or tax breaks to be in the business of denying benefits for the people who work for them. They argue that the accommodation essentially works as a “permission slip” for contraception, and does not adequately separate the religious organization from the flow of contraception between their insurers and their employees.

The most notorious of the lawsuits challenging the accommodation was filed by the evangelical Wheaton College, which, like the University of Notre Dame, offered contraception coverage in its health insurance plans before deciding that to continue to do so in compliance with the birth control benefit would violate its religious liberty. A mere four days after the Supreme Court ruled against the government in Hobby Lobby—citing the accommodation as the reason—the Supreme Court signaled in its Wheaton College order that the accommodation itself might also be a violation of religious liberty.

In blocking the government from applying the accommodation to Wheaton College, the Court said Wheaton College did not have to fill out the self-certification form, Form 700. Wheaton College could simply inform the Department of Health and Human Services of its religious objections in writing.

That ruling prompted outrage from Justice Sonia Sotomayor—Sharona Coutts and I published a story about that in late July—but it also prompted the government to capitulate once again to the religious caterwauling of those opposed to its contraception coverage policy.

Some commentators took the Court’s ruling in Wheaton College to be an invitation to further tweak the accommodation to the birth control benefit. And given today’s release of further tweaks to the birth control benefit and accommodation, the government did too.

I fail to see why.

Even though the Court blocked application of the accommodation to Wheaton College, it expressly stated that its ruling was not on the merits: “[T]his order should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits.”

In other words, after full consideration, the Court very well could have found that Wheaton College’s objections to filling out the self-certification form have no merit and might have allowed the government’s accommodation to stand.

But the Obama administration—pushover that it is—didn’t bother waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a final ruling in the Wheaton College case. (That will likely happen during the Supreme Court’s next term.)

Instead, taking its cue from the Supreme Court’s Wheaton College order, the administration released new regulations allowing eligible organizations to inform the Department of Health and Human Services in writing of their religious objection to contraceptive coverage so that, as before, a third party can step in and provide that coverage in the religious objector’s stead. In its rush to appease these religious objectors, did the Obama administration stop to think that perhaps these religious objectors cannot be appeased because they are immovable? Has the administration learned nothing from its previous negotiations with the religious right?

The Obama administration’s willingness to accommodate religious objectors has done enough damage.

First and foremost, offering more and more concessions simply sanctions employers’ efforts to deny employees their right to earned health benefits, all in the name of “religious liberty.”

In addition, these concessions have led to disastrous results in court: The accommodation provided the U.S. Supreme Court the ammunition it needed to rule in favor of closely held for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, which had complained that they were “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and that the birth control benefit forced them to violate their faith. According to the Supreme Court, the very existence of the accommodation allowing for religious exemptions from the birth control benefit necessarily meant that the birth control benefit itself was not the “least restrictive means” of ensuring that women would have access to contraception without co-pay. And that was the key reason for the administration’s profound defeat in Hobby Lobby.

By further tweaking the accommodation, the administration has all but admitted that the current iteration of the accommodation will fail the “least restrictive means” test once the Wheaton College case winds its way back up to the Supreme Court, just as the birth control benefit failed that test in the Hobby Lobby case.

So why is the administration forcing the error? Does the Obama administration have a concession strategy, or is it simply going to keep bending to the religious right’s will and, in so doing, undermining women’s reproductive rights?

The Obama administration should have allowed the courts time to sort out the current contraception conundrum because if history is any indication, there’s no concession that the Obama administration can offer the immovable religious right that will make them happy.

So rather than try, the Obama administration should have just let the legal chips fall where they may.

Instead, the Obama administration has opened itself up to a host of new lawsuits that jeopardize its ability to maintain its commitment to providing a full range of reproductive health-care benefits—including contraception—to the women who have earned them.

Commentary Politics

On Immigration, Major Political Parties Can’t Seem to Agree on What’s ‘Un-American’

Tina Vasquez

As far as immigration is concerned, neither the Democrats nor Republicans are without their faults, though positions taken at the conventions were clearly more extreme in one case than the other.

Read more of our coverage of the Democratic National Convention here.

Immigration has been one of the country’s most contentious political topics and, not surprisingly, is now a primary focus of this election. But no matter how you feel about the subject, this is a nation of immigrants in search of “el sueño Americano,” as Karla Ortiz reminded us on the first night of the Democratic National Convention (DNC). Ortiz, the 11-year-old daughter of two undocumented parents, appeared in a Hillary Clinton campaign ad earlier this year expressing fear that her parents would be deported. Standing next to her mother on the DNC stage, the young girl told the crowd that she is an American who wants to become a lawyer to help families like hers.

It was a powerful way to kick-start the week, suggesting to viewers Democrats were taking a radically different approach to immigration than the Republican National Convention (RNC). While the RNC made undocumented immigrants the scapegoats for a variety of social ills, from U.S. unemployment to terrorism, the DNC chose to highlight the contributions of immigrants: the U.S. citizen daughter of undocumented parents, the undocumented college graduate, the children of immigrants who went into politics. Yet, even the stories shared at the DNC were too tidy and palatable, focusing on “acceptable” immigrant narratives. There were no mixed-status families discussing their deported parents, for example.

As far as immigration is concerned, neither the Democrats nor Republicans are without their faults, though positions taken at the conventions were clearly more extreme in one case than the other. By the end of two weeks, viewers may not have known whether to blame immigrants for taking their jobs or to befriend their hardworking immigrant neighbors. For the undocumented immigrants watching the conventions, the message, however, was clear: Both parties have a lot of work to do when it comes to humanizing their communities.  

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

“No Business Being in This Country”

For context, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and his running mate Mike Pence are the decidedly anti-immigrant ticket. From the beginning, Trump’s campaign has been overrun by anti-immigrant rhetoric, from calling Mexicans “rapists” and “killers” to calling for a ban on Muslim immigration. And as of July 24, Trump’s proposed ban now includes people from countries “compromised by terrorism” who will not be allowed to enter the United States, including anyone from France.

So, it should come as no surprise that the first night of the RNC, which had the theme of “Make America Safe Again,” preyed on American fears of the “other.” In this case: undocumented immigrants who, as Julianne Hing wrote for the Nation, “aren’t just drug dealers and rapists anymorenow they’re murderers, too.”

Night one of the RNC featured not one but three speakers whose children were killed by undocumented immigrants. “They’re just three brave representatives of many thousands who have suffered so gravely,” Trump said at the convention. “Of all my travels in this country, nothing has affected me more, nothing even close I have to tell you, than the time I have spent with the mothers and fathers who have lost their children to violence spilling across our borders, which we can solve. We have to solve it.”

Billed as “immigration reform advocates,” grieving parents like Mary Ann Mendoza called her son’s killer, who had resided in the United States for 20 years before the drunk driving accident that ended her police officer son’s life, an “illegal immigrant” who “had no business being in this country.”

It seemed exploitative and felt all too common. Drunk driving deaths are tragically common and have nothing to do with immigration, but it is easier to demonize undocumented immigrants than it is to address the nation’s broken immigration system and the conditions that are separating people from their countries of originconditions to which the United States has contributed. Trump has spent months intentionally and disingenuously pushing narratives that undocumented immigrants are hurting and exploiting the United States, rather than attempting to get to the root of these issues. This was hammered home by Mendoza, who finished her speech saying that we have a system that cares more about “illegals” than Americans, and that a vote for Hillary “puts all of our children’s lives at risk.”

There was also Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a notorious racist whose department made a practice of racially profiling Latinos and was recently found to be in civil contempt of court for “repeatedly and knowingly” disobeying orders to cease policing tactics against Latinos, NPR reported.

Like Mendoza, Arpaio told the RNC crowd that the immigration system “puts the needs of other nations ahead of ours” and that “we are more concerned with the rights of ‘illegal aliens’ and criminals than we are with protecting our own country.” The sheriff asserted that he was at the RNC because he was distinctly qualified to discuss the “dangers of illegal immigration,” as someone who has lived on both sides of the border.

“We have terrorists coming in over our border, infiltrating our communities, and causing massive destruction and mayhem,” Arpaio said. “We have criminals penetrating our weak border security systems and committing serious crimes.”

Broadly, the takeaway from the RNC and the GOP nominee himself is that undocumented immigrants are terrorists who are taking American jobs and lives. “Trump leaned on a tragic story of a young woman’s murder to prop up a generalized depiction of immigrants as menacing, homicidal animals ‘roaming freely to threaten peaceful citizens,’” Hing wrote for the Nation.

When accepting the nomination, Trump highlighted the story of Sarah Root of Nebraska, a 21-year-old who was killed in a drunk-driving accident by a 19-year-old undocumented immigrant.

“To this administration, [the Root family’s] amazing daughter was just one more American life that wasn’t worth protecting,” Trump said. “One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders.”

It should be noted that the information related to immigration that Trump provided in his RNC speech, which included the assertion that the federal government enables crime by not deporting more undocumented immigrants (despite deporting more undocumented immigrants than ever before in recent years), came from groups founded by John Tanton, a well-known nativist whom the Southern Poverty Law center referred to as “the racist architect of the modern anti-immigrant movement.”

“The Border Crossed Us”

From the get-go, it seemed the DNC set out to counter the dangerous, anti-immigrant rhetoric pushed at the RNC. Over and over again, Democrats like Congressional Hispanic Caucus Chair Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-CA) hit back hard against Trump, citing him by name and quoting him directly.

“Donald Trump believes that Mexican immigrants are murderers and rapists. But what about my parents, Donald?” Sánchez asked the crowd, standing next to her sister, Rep. Loretta Sánchez (D-CA). “They are the only parents in our nation’s 265-year history to send not one but two daughters to the United States Congress!”

Each speech from a Latino touched on immigration, glossing over the fact that immigration is not just a Latino issue. While the sentiments were positiveillustrating a community that is thriving, and providing a much-needed break from the RNC’s anti-immigrant rhetoricat the core of every speech were messages of assimilation and respectability politics.

Even in gutsier speeches from people like actress Eva Longoria, there was the need to assert that her family is American and that her father is a veteran. The actress said, “My family never crossed a border. The border crossed us.”

Whether intentional or not, the DNC divided immigrants into those who are acceptable, respectable, and worthy of citizenship, and those—invisible at the convention—who are not. “Border crossers” who do not identify as American, who do not learn English, who do not aspire to go to college or become an entrepreneur because basic survival is overwhelming enough, what about them? Do they deserve to be in detention? Do their families deserve to be ripped apart by deportation?

At the convention, Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), a champion of immigration reform, said something seemingly innocuous that snapped into focus the problem with the Democrats’ immigration narrative.

“In her heart, Hillary Clinton’s dream for America is one where immigrants are allowed to come out of the shadows, get right with the law, pay their taxes, and not feel fear that their families are going to be ripped apart,” Gutiérrez said.

The Democratic Party is participating in an all-too-convenient erasure of the progress undocumented people have made through sheer force of will. Immigration has become a leading topic not because there are more people crossing the border (there aren’t) or because nativist Donald Trump decided to run for president, but because a segment of the population has been denied basic rights and has been fighting tooth and nail to save themselves, their families, and their communities.

Immigrants have been coming out of the shadows and as a result, are largely responsible for the few forms of relief undocumented communities now have, like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows certain undocumented immigrants who meet specific qualifications to receive a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation. And “getting right with the law” is a joke at this point. The problem isn’t that immigrants are failing to adhere to immigration laws; the problem is immigration laws that are notoriously complicated and convoluted, and the system, which is so backlogged with cases that a judge sometimes has just seven minutes to determine an immigrant’s fate.

Becoming a U.S. citizen is also really expensive. There is a cap on how many people can immigrate from any given country in a year, and as Janell Ross explained at the Washington Post:

There are some countries, including Mexico, from where a worker with no special skills or a relative in the United States can apply and wait 23 years, according to the U.S. government’s own data. That’s right: There are people receiving visas right now in Mexico to immigrate to the United States who applied in 1993.

But getting back to Gutierrez’s quote: Undocumented immigrants do pay taxes, though their ability to contribute to our economy should not be the one point on which Democrats hang their hats in order to attract voters. And actually, undocumented people pay a lot of taxes—some $11.6 billion in state and local taxes last year, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy—while rarely benefiting from a majority of federal assistance programs since the administration of President Bill Clinton ended “welfare as we know it” in 1996.

If Democrats were being honest at their convention, we would have heard about their failure to end family detention, and they would have addressed that they too have a history of criminalizing undocumented immigrants.

The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, enacted under former President Clinton, have had the combined effect of dramatically increasing the number of immigrants in detention and expanding mandatory or indefinite detention of noncitizens ordered to be removed to countries that will not accept them, as the American Civil Liberties Union notes on its site. Clinton also passed the North American Free Trade Agreement, which economically devastated Mexican farmers, leading to their mass migration to the United States in search of work.

In 1990, then-Sen. Joe Biden introduced the Violence Against Women Act, which passed in 1994 and specifically excluded undocumented women for the first 19 of the law’s 22 years, and even now is only helpful if the victim of intimate partner abuse is a child, parent, or current/former spouse of a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.

In addition, President Obama is called by immigrant rights advocates “deporter in chief,” having put into place a “deportation machine” that has sent more than two million migrants back to their country of origin, more than any president in history. New arrivals to the United States, such as the Central American asylum seekers coming to our border escaping gender-based violence, are treated with the same level of prioritization for removal as threats to our national security. The country’s approach to this humanitarian crisis has been raiding homes in the middle of the night and placing migrants in detention centers, which despite being rife with allegations of human rights abuses, are making private prison corporations millions in revenue.

How Are We Defining “Un-American”?

When writing about the Democratic Party, community organizer Rosa Clemente, the 2008 Green Party vice president candidate, said that she is afraid of Trump, “but not enough to be distracted from what we must do, which is to break the two-party system for good.”

This is an election like we’ve never seen before, and it would be disingenuous to imply that the party advocating for the demise of the undocumented population is on equal footing with the party advocating for the rights of certain immigrants whose narratives it finds acceptable. But this is a country where Republicans loudly—and with no consequence—espouse racist, xenophobic, and nativist beliefs while Democrats publicly voice support of migrants while quietly standing by policies that criminalize undocumented communities and lead to record numbers of deportations.

During two weeks of conventions, both sides declared theirs was the party that encapsulated what America was supposed to be, adhering to morals and values handed down from our forefathers. But ours is a country comprised of stolen land and built by slave labor where today, undocumented immigrants, the population most affected by unjust immigration laws and violent anti-immigrant rhetoric, don’t have the right to vote. It is becoming increasingly hard to tell if that is indeed “un-American” or deeply American.

Commentary Contraception

For Students at Religious Universities, Contraception Coverage Isn’t an Academic Debate

Alison Tanner

When the U.S. Supreme Court sent a case about faith-based objections to the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate back to lower courts, it left students at religious colleges and universities with continuing uncertainty about getting essential health care. And that's not what religious freedom is about.

Read more of our articles on challenges to the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit here.

Students choose which university to attend for a variety of reasons: the programs offered, the proximity of campus to home, the institution’s reputation, the financial assistance available, and so on. But young people may need to ask whether their school is likely to discriminate in the provision of health insurance, including contraceptive coverage.

In Zubik v. Burwell, a group of cases sent back to the lower courts by the U.S. Supreme Court in May, a handful of religiously affiliated universities sought the right to deny their students, faculty, and staff access to health insurance coverage for contraception.

This isn’t just a legal debate for me. It’s personal. The private university where I attend law school, Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., currently complies with provisions in the Affordable Care Act that make it possible for a third-party insurer to provide contraceptive access to those who want it. But some hope that these legal challenges to the ACA’s birth control rule will reverse that.

Like This Story?

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

Donate Now

Georgetown University Law Center refused to provide insurance coverage for contraception before the accommodation was created in 2012. Without a real decision by the Supreme Court, my access to contraception insurance will continue to be at risk while I’m in school.

I’m not alone. Approximately 1.9 million students attend religiously affiliated universities in the United States, according to the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities. We students chose to attend these institutions for lots of reasons, many of which having nothing to do with religion. I decided to attend Georgetown University Law Center because I felt it was the right school for me to pursue my academic and professional goals, it’s in a great city, it has an excellent faculty, and it has a vibrant public-interest law community.

Like many of my fellow students, I am not Catholic and do not share my university’s views on contraception and abortion. Although I was aware of Georgetown’s history of denying students’ essential health-care benefits, I did not think I should have to sacrifice the opportunity to attend an elite law school because I am a woman of reproductive age.

That’s why, as a former law clerk for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, I helped to organize a brief before the high court on behalf of 240 students, faculty, and staff at religiously affiliated universities including Fordham, Georgetown, Loyola Marymount, and the University of Notre Dame.

Our brief defended the sensible accommodation crafted by the Obama administration. That compromise relieves religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations of any obligation to pay for or otherwise provide contraception coverage; in fact, they don’t have to pay a dime for it. Once the university informs the government that it does not want to pay for birth control, a third-party insurer steps in and provides coverage to the students, faculty, and staff who want it.

Remarkably, officials at the religious colleges still challenging the Affordable Care Act say this deal is not good enough. They’re arguing that the mere act of informing the government that they do not want to do something makes them “complicit” in the private decisions of others.

Such an argument stands religious freedom on its head in an attempt to impose one group’s theological beliefs on others by vetoing the third-party insurance providers’ distribution of essential health coverage to students, faculty, and staff.

This should not be viewed as some academic debate confined to legal textbooks and court chambers. It affects real people—most of them women. Studies by the Guttmacher Institute and other groups that study human sexuality have shown that use of artificial forms of birth control is nearly universal among sexually active women of childbearing years. That includes Catholic women, who use birth control at the same rate as non-Catholics.

Indeed, contraception is essential health care, especially for students. An overwhelming number of young people’s pregnancies are unplanned, and having children while in college or a graduate program typically delays graduation, increases the likelihood that the parent will drop out, and may affect their future professional paths.

Additionally, many menstrual disorders make it difficult to focus in class; contraception alleviates the symptoms of a variety of illnesses, and it can help women actually preserve their long-term fertility. For example, one of the students who signed our brief told the Court that, “Without birth control, I experience menstrual cycles that make it hard to function in everyday life and do things like attend class.” Another woman who signed the brief told the Court, “I have a history of ovarian cysts and twice have required surgery, at ages 8 and 14. After my second surgery, the doctor informed me that I should take contraceptives, because if it happened again, I might be infertile.”

For these and many other reasons, women want and need convenient access to safe, affordable contraceptives. It is time for religiously affiliated institutions—and the Supreme Court—to acknowledge this reality.

Because we still don’t have an ultimate decision from the Supreme Court, incoming students cannot consider ease of access to contraception in deciding where to attend college, and they may risk committing to attend an university that will be legally allowed to discriminate against them. A religiously affiliated university may be in all other regards a perfect fit for a young woman. It’s unfair that she should face have to risk access to essential health care to pursue academic opportunity.

Religious liberty is an important right—and that’s why it should not be misinterpreted. Historically, religious freedom has been defined as the right to make decisions for yourself, not others. Religious freedom gives you have the right to determine where, how, and if you will engage in religious activities.

It does not, nor should it ever, give one person or institution the power to meddle in the personal medical decisions of others.