2Center or American Progress | State Eorts to Reject Contraceptive Coverage Laws on Religious Grounds
4 saes (Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire) considered legislaionamending sae saues ha required insurance coverage or conracepion, expandingemployers’ reusal righs.
3 saes (Colorado, Idaho, and Michigan) considered symbolic measures haexplicily rejeced he ederal conracepive coverage guaranee.
Voers in one sae (Norh Dakoa) considered a ballo iniiaive ha would haveallowed people o break he law in he name o religious libery, while an eor inanoher sae (Colorado) o propose a similar ballo measure was wihdrawn beorei could ace a voe.
One sae wihou is own conracepive coverage law (Oklahoma) considered legisla-ion ha would have allowed employers and employees o op ou o coverage haincludes conracepion or aborion services.Below we look in deail a wha’s happened in hese nine saes.
Te sae legislaure passed and Gov. Janice K. Brewer (R) signed ino law in May a billha permis a “religiously aliaed employer” o oer healh plans ha do no coverconracepives based on he employer’s or benefciary’s religious objecions, changingexising Arizona saues. In he bill, a religiously aliaed employer is defned as anorganizaion whose incorporaion documens make i clear ha religious belies arecenral o is operaing principles.Under he new law an employee can “receive reimbursemen or conracepives pre-scribed or non-conracepive medical purposes.”
Bu he law removes proecionsor employees who independenly obain conracepion prescripions or insurancecoverage rom anoher source, leaving open he opporuniy or religious employerso discriminae agains employees who hold dieren views.
Te Arizona law is indirec conic wih he ederal conracepive coverage guaranee.
Focus on he Family, a righ-wing Chrisian advocacy group, had proposed a ballomeasure banning governmen inererence wih an individual or organizaion’s religiousreedom. Te organizaion, however, wihdrew he measure in May. Te group hadpromoed a similar measure in 2010, which i also wihdrew.