Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

Ratings:
(0)
|Views: 738|Likes:

More info:

Published by: State Senator Liz Krueger on Feb 13, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/13/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 February 10, 2012President Barack ObamaThe White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington D.C. 20500Dear President Obama:We write as members of the New York State Bipartisan Legislative Pro-Choice Caucus to thank you for yourcourageous stand in support of access to reproductive health services. We urge you to stand firm in the face of pressure from a vocal minority to reverse your recently issued administrative rule that would require healthinsurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays.The rule as adopted already contains a strong exemption allowing approximately 335,000 churches/houses of worship to refuse to provide birth control coverage for their employees. This exemption is nearly identical tothe exemptio
n in New York’s contraceptive coverage law.
 
 New York helped paved the way for greater access to contraceptives by enacting the Women’s Health andWellness Act in 2002. This legislation extended broad consumer protections for women’s health care by
requiring employee health insurance plans to cover breast and cervical cancer screening, osteoporosis exams,and prescription contraceptives when the plan covered prescriptions. The impetus for this legislation was thefinding that women were saddled with greater out-of-pocket costs for health care services then males, mainlydue to the common exclusion of contraceptive coverage.
 New York’s religious exemption, upon which the federal exemption is based, strikes a careful and appropriate
balance of protecting religious freedom and preventing discrimination against female employees. Under thelaw, employers engaged in purely religious activities
 – 
such as Churches and seminaries
 – 
are exempted fromhaving to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. However, employers that are engaged in secularactivities
 – 
such as religiously affiliated hospitals and social services agencies, who do not primarily serve andemploy those of the same faith -- are not exempted. Their employees -- nurses, janitors, laundry room staff andthe like -- often come from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and should not be expected or forced tosubscribe to the religious views of their employer on matters of reproductive health.This law has withstood constitutional challenge, and was upheld by all three levels of New York state courts. In
2007, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. California’s contraceptive equity law, which is similar to New York’s, has also withstood legal challenges.
 Nationally, there is widespread support for this benefit, even among Catholics, and strong opposition todiscriminating against women by taking away their health care coverage. A new Public Policy Polling Pollshows 56 percent of voters support the birth control coverage benefit, including 53 percent of Catholic voters,and 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->