Fertility Clock Headlines, Fertility Headlines

Implementing Health Reform: Contraceptive Coverage Litigation Moves Toward The Supreme Court

Litigation challenging the Affordable Care Act preventive services rule
continues its march toward the Supreme Court.  This requirement has been
challenged by over 60 lawsuits filed across the country by religious
organizations and employers that object on religious grounds either to
contraceptives generally or to specific contraceptives — like Ella or
Plan B — that operate after the fertilization of an egg by a sperm.

Fertility Clock Headlines, Fertility Headlines

The Budget Drain of Same-Sex Parenthood

Molly Jacobs and her wife, Lisa Carroll, were on a camping trip cut off
from phones and the Internet when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a few
weeks ago that the federal government must recognize their marriage.
Their celebration was cut short by the realization that the June 26
decision, while well worth it, comes at a cost. And the ruling does
little to nothing to ease more than a year of high-cost hassles that the
couple thinks was caused by discrimination.

Fertility Clock Headlines, Fertility Headlines

Only Place Contraception is Controversial is Politics

On June 7, 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court legalized contraception (for married people, at least) and held that women and men have the right to privacy in making decisions about their sexual health. The case recognized, in law, the principle that women and men — not government — should decide when and how to plan their families, and paved the way for programs and policies that help women make health care decisions that affect their educational opportunities, their professional work, and their families.

Fertility Clock Headlines, Fertility Headlines

A Flood of Suits Fights Coverage of Birth Control

In a flood of lawsuits, Roman Catholics, evangelicals and Mennonites are challenging a provision in the new health care law that requires employers to cover birth control in employee health plans — a high-stakes clash between religious freedom and health care access that appears headed to the Supreme Court.

In recent months, federal courts have seen dozens of lawsuits brought not only by religious institutions like Catholic dioceses but also by private employers ranging from a pizza mogul to produce transporters who say the government is forcing them to violate core tenets of their faith. Some have been turned away by judges convinced that access to contraception is a vital health need and a compelling state interest. Others have been told that their beliefs appear to outweigh any state interest and that they may hold off complying with the law until their cases have been judged. New suits are filed nearly weekly.

“This is highly likely to end up at the Supreme Court,” said Douglas Laycock, a law professor at the University of Virginia and one of the country’s top scholars on church-state conflicts. “There are so many cases, and we are already getting strong disagreements among the circuit courts.” Read full article.

Fertility Clock Headlines, Fertility Headlines

Unlikely Coalition Fights Contraception Mandate

Abortion opponents rallying by the thousands Friday in Washington at the annual March for Life have lost some political battles lately but won a string of court victories, thanks in part to a diverse coalition challenging a contraception mandate in the health care overhaul.

For-profit businesses, state attorneys general and educational institutions are among more than 100 plaintiffs who have mounted some 40 lawsuits challenging the mandate, according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a nonprofit legal institute that has played a leading role in the suits. With lower courts in dispute over the mandate, both sides agree the issue will almost inevitably be settled by the Supreme Court.

The mandate requires employer-sponsored health care plans to cover contraception, including intrauterine devices and emergency birth control drugs that many religious employers equate with abortion. The Obama administration offered a narrow exemption for religious organizations and required insurers, not employers, to pay for the services. However, opponents remain unsatisfied. Read full article.