Advertisement

We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

US President Donald Trump Carolyn Kaster/AP/Press Association Images

'Contempt for women reaches a new low': Trump administration rolls back free birth control access

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit in response to the announcement.

US PRESIDENT DONALD Trump’s administration is allowing more employers to opt out of no-cost birth control for workers and issuing sweeping religious freedom directions that could override many anti-discrimination protections for LGBT+ people and others.

At a time when Trump finds himself embattled on many fronts, the two directives — issued almost simultaneously yesterday — demonstrated the president’s eagerness to retain the loyalty of social conservatives who make up a key part of his base. Leaders of that grouping have welcomed the news.

“President Trump is demonstrating his commitment to undoing the anti-faith policies of the previous administration and restoring true religious freedom,” Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said.

However, liberal advocacy groups, including those supporting LGBT+ and reproductive rights, were outraged.

“The Trump administration is saying to employers, ‘If you want to discriminate, we have your back’,” Fatima Goss Graves, president of National Women’s Law Center, said.

Her organisation is among several that are planning to challenge the birth control rollback in court. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed such a lawsuit less than three hours after the rules were issued.

“The Trump administration is forcing women to pay for their boss’ religious beliefs,” ACLU senior staff lawyer Brigitte Amiri said.

We’re filing this lawsuit because the federal government cannot authorise discrimination against women in the name of religion or otherwise.

The Democratic attorneys general of California and Massachusetts filed similar lawsuits yesterday. Both directives had been in the works for months, with activists on both sides of a culture war on edge about the timing and the details.

The religious-liberty directive, issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, instructs federal agencies to do as much as possible to accommodate those who claim their religious freedoms are being violated.

The guidance effectively lifts a burden from religious objectors to prove that their beliefs about marriage or other topics that affect various actions are sincerely held.

“Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law,” Sessions wrote.

Hiring policies 

In what is likely to be one of the more contested aspects of the document, the Justice Department states that religious organisations can hire workers based on religious beliefs and an employee’s willingness “to adhere to a code of conduct”.

Many conservative Christian schools and faith-based agencies require employees to adhere to moral codes that ban sex outside marriage and same-sex relationships, among other behaviour.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm, called it “a great day for religious freedom”.

However, JoDee Winterhof of the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT+ rights group, depicted the two directives as “an all-out assault, on women, LGBT people and others” as the administration fulfilled a “wish list” of the religious right.

The new policy on contraception, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), allows more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing no-cost birth control to women by claiming religious or moral objections.

This move is another step in rolling back President Barack Obama’s healthcare law that required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost.

Employers with religious or moral qualms will also be able to cover some birth control methods, and not others. Experts said that could interfere with efforts to promote modern long-acting implantable contraceptives, such as IUDs, which are more expensive.

‘Contempt for women’ 

The top Democrat in the House of Representatives, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said the birth control rollback was despicable.

“This administration’s contempt for women reaches a new low with this appalling decision to enable employers and health plans to deny women basic coverage for contraception,” she said.

On the Republican side, however, House Speaker Paul Ryan welcomed the decision, calling it “a landmark day for religious liberty”.

The new policy took effect yesterday, but its impact won’t be known immediately and may not be dramatic.

“I can’t imagine that many employers are going to be willing to certify that they have a moral objection to standard birth control methods,” Dan Mendelson, president of the consulting firm Avalere Health, said.

Nonetheless, he worried that the new rules would set a precedent for undermining basic health benefits required under federal law. The administration has estimated that some 200 employers who have already voiced objections to the Obama-era policy would qualify for the expanded opt-out, and that 120,000 women would be affected.

Since contraception became a covered preventive benefit, the share of female employees paying with their own money for birth control pills has plunged to 3%, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Many Catholic hospitals now rely on an Obama-era workaround under which the government pays for the cost of birth control coverage. That workaround can continue under the new rules.

Despite that workaround, there have been extensive legal battles waged by religious institutions and other parties challenging the birth-control mandate. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops hailed the new policy as a “return to common sense” that would enhance “peaceful coexistence” between church and state.

Doctors’ groups that were instrumental in derailing Republican plans to repeal Obama’s health law have expressed their dismay.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the new policy could reverse the recent progress in lowering the nation’s rate of unintended pregnancies.

“Instead of fulfilling its mission ‘to enhance and protect the health and wellbeing of all Americans’, HHS leaders under the current administration are focused on turning back the clock on women’s health,” the organisation’s president, Dr Haywood Brown, said.

Read: Harvey Weinstein on ‘indefinite leave’ as film company investigates sexual harassment claims

Read: Gun stocks rise following mass shooting in Las Vegas

Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article. Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.

Close
136 Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute david snowe
    Favourite david snowe
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 9:36 AM

    Busy night for dfb

    26
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Danny Gibson
    Favourite Danny Gibson
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 10:17 AM

    C Watch

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Al McGee
    Favourite Al McGee
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 10:04 AM

    Well done B watch. Good save

    7
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Danny O' Connor
    Favourite Danny O' Connor
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 11:18 AM

    Jaysus! SRT’s mobilised to domestics now? Spare the water lads ;-)

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Ken Loughlin
    Favourite Ken Loughlin
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 11:34 AM

    Thank God all are safe and no fatalities!

    4
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute ipsum oleum
    Favourite ipsum oleum
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 2:11 PM

    Chip-pan roulette ?

    3
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Robert Mc Kevitt
    Favourite Robert Mc Kevitt
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 11:04 PM

    It was on fm104 tonight that someone petrol bombed that family

    1
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Robert Mc Kevitt
    Favourite Robert Mc Kevitt
    Report
    Feb 25th 2014, 11:53 PM

    Yeah and they were sxxm bags 2 one of them chased a little 13 year old girl down the road with a knife live by the sword this is what happens

    5
    Install the app to use these features.
    Mute Tom Jones
    Favourite Tom Jones
    Report
    Mar 30th 2014, 4:25 AM

    General Exclusions
    We shall not be liable for
    War and Terrorism
    Notwithstanding any provision to the
    contrary within this insurance or any
    endorsement thereto it is agreed that
    this insurance excludes liability, loss,
    damage, cost or expense of
    whatsoever nature directly or
    indirectly caused by, resulting from
    or in connection with any of the
    following regardless of any other
    cause or event contributing
    concurrently or in any other
    sequence to the loss;
    (1) war, invasion, acts of foreign
    enemies, hostilities or warlike
    operations (whether war be
    declared or not), civil war,
    rebellion, revolution,
    insurrection, civil commotion
    assuming the proportions of or
    amounting to an uprising,
    military or usurped power, or
    (2) any act of terrorism.
    An act of terrorism means an
    act, including but not limited to
    the use of force or violence
    and/or the threat thereof, of any
    person or group(s) of persons,
    whether acting alone or on
    behalf of or in connection with
    any organisation(s) or
    government(s), committed for
    political, religious, ideological or
    other purposes including the
    intention to influence any
    government and/or to put the
    public, or any section of the
    public, in fear.
    This endorsement also excludes
    liability, loss, damage, cost or
    expense of whatsoever nature
    directly or indirectly caused by,
    resulting from or in connection with
    any action taken in controlling,
    preventing, suppressing or in any
    way relating to (1) and/or (2) above.
    If the Company alleges that by reason
    of this exclusion any liability, loss,
    damage, cost or expense is not
    covered by this insurance the burden
    of proving the contrary shall be upon
    the Insured.
    In the event any portion of this
    endorsement is found to be invalid or
    unenforceable, the remainder shall
    remain in full force and effect.

    1
Submit a report
Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
Thank you for the feedback
Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

Leave a commentcancel

 
JournalTv
News in 60 seconds