Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

December-17-13

Court Allows NY Catholic Groups to Refuse Contraceptive Coverage

A federal judge ruled yesterday that a group of Catholic institutions in New York do not have to comply with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) contraceptive coverage requirement. The ACA guarantees that all new health insurance plans cover FDA-approved contraceptives, including the pill and IUDs, without co-pays or deductibles.

US District Judge Brian Cogan in Brooklyn ruled that the six plaintiffs - Archdiocese of New York, Catholic Health Care System, Catholic Health Services of Long Island, Diocese of Rockville Centre, Cardinal Spellman High School, and Monsignor Farrell High School - are exempt from the mandate because of their religious beliefs. This case is Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius [PDF].

Although the ACA provision has helped thousands of US women obtain contraception - the proportion of women paying zero dollars for oral contraceptive pills increased from 15 to 40 percent since it went into effect - this ruling will make it harder for the more than 25,000 employees of the plaintiffs to obtain affordable contraception.

Several for-profit companies have also challenged the ACA contraceptive coverage requirement in federal courts. In November, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge by Hobby Lobby, a for-profit national craft store chain, and Conestoga Wood, a wood cabinet manufacturer. Both are arguing that the requirement violates the religious beliefs of these corporations and that they should not be required to provide health insurance plans that cover certain types of birth control.

The Feminist Majority Foundation launched a petition to send the Supreme Court a clear message that companies should not be able to use religion as cover to discriminate against women. Sign our petition, leave stories,and tell the Court why birth control coverage matters to you! You can also share the petition online using the tag #MyBodyMyBC!

Media Resources: US District Court Eastern District of New York 12/16/13; RH Reality Check 12/16/13; Feminist Newswire 11/12/13, 11/26/13, 12/13/13; Bloomberg Business Week 12/15/13; Change.org


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

9/12/2014 Violence Against Women Act Turns 20 - Saturday will be the 20th Anniversary of the groundbreaking federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Passed in 1994, VAWA was the first piece of federal legislation to specifically address domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes and to provide federal funding to improve local response to violence against women, including training and resources for law enforcement and judges. President Barack Obama on Tuesday issued a proclamation commemorating the VAWA anniversary. . . .
 
9/12/2014 Indiana Woman Charged With Feticide For Premature Delivery - An Indiana woman has been charged with feticide after she delivered prematurely and sought hospital treatment. Purvi Patel, 33, sought help at an emergency room for vaginal bleeding where it was discovered that she had delivered prematurely at home. . . .
 
9/11/2014 Missouri Legislators Pass 72-Hour Abortion Waiting Period Law - Missouri legislators voted late last night to triple the state's current 24-hour waiting period to 72 hours, with no exceptions for rape or incest. Governor Jay Nixon previously vetoed the bill in July, calling it "extreme and disrespectful." Missouri's House voted 117-44 to override the veto, and then the Senate used a procedural move to stop a Democratic filibuster of the bill and vote 23-7 to complete the veto override Wednesday. "The only purpose of a 72-hour waiting period is to attempt to punish, shame, and demean women who have arrived at a personal decision that politicians happen to disagree with," said the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights in a statement. . . .