Featured Reproductive Health Resources
In this brief, the Kaiser Family Foundation outlines 10 ways women could be affected under the House of Representatives’ American Health Care Act. In particular, the brief analyzes how changes might affect Medicaid and its expansion population, financial assistance in the individual insurance market, coverage for essential health benefits and preventive services such as contraception, abortion, and maternity care, as well as insurance reforms such as gender rating.
Issue Brief See More
Related Reproductive Health Resources
- The Future of Contraceptive Coverage
- Web Briefing for Journalists – Potential Changes to Health Care Access and Coverage: What’s at Stake for Women?
- Preventive Services for Women Covered by Private Health Plans under the Affordable Care Act
- The Mexico City Policy: An Explainer
- What Is the Scope of the Mexico City Policy: Assessing Abortion Laws in Countries That Receive U.S. Global Health Assistance
- Medication Abortion
- Medicaid Family Planning Programs: Case Studies of Six States After ACA Implementation
- Medicaid Coverage of Pregnancy and Perinatal Benefits: Results from a State Survey
- Medicaid Managed Care and the Provision of Family Planning Services
This brief reviews the role Medicaid, the Title X Family Planning Program, and Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act in financing care and enabling access to family planning services and addresses the potential impact of actions taken by President Trump and Congress to block federal funds from Planned Parenthood and other entities that provide abortion.
Issue Brief See More
- view as grid
- view as list
Web Briefing for Media – The Supreme Court, Birth Control, and Religious Freedom: Implications of Zubik v. Burwell
On March 23, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Zubik v. Burwell, legal challenges brought by nonprofit corporations challenging the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The 2014 Hobby Lobby decision established that certain firms with religious beliefs should be relieved of the requirement of paying for contraceptive coverage. In this case, religious nonprofits are objecting to the regulations that the Obama Administration has developed to accommodate their religious objections to birth control, claiming it still burdens their religious beliefs. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated case has taken on yet an additional question. Given that the Court will be operating with only 8 Justices, what would be the impact of a tie (4-4) decision? To address the legal and policy questions raised by the case, the Kaiser Family Foundation will hold an interactive web briefing exclusively for journalists.Event Read More
This new KFF Factsheet reviews the available methods, use, and insurance coverage of male and female sterilization. It also discusses the potential affect of the ACA on sterilization rates as well as the growing presence of religious providers and its affect on the provision of sterilization services.Fact Sheet Read More
The Kaiser Family Foundation has launched a new interactive map and dashboard that offers the latest national and state-specific data on women’s health in the United States via comprehensive, easy-to-access state profiles. State Profiles for Women’s Health allows users to hover over a state in the map to see key facts for…News Release Read More
In this post on The Huffington Post, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel offer a Q&A on “contraceptive-only” plans, an approach mentioned during oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell. In the Zubik case, a group of religiously affiliated nonprofits with religious objections to providing birth control coverage seek an exemption from the Affordable Care Act’s provision requiring most plans to offer such coverage without cost-sharing.Perspective Read More
In this Medium post, Alina Salganicoff outlines the legal arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court case Zubik v. Burwell and discusses what the case could mean for contraceptive coverage.Perspective Read More
In the latest post in the Policy Insights series, Jen Kates, Josh Michaud, and Allison Valentine examine how rapid emergence of Zika virus in the Americas, and its association with a severe birth defect, impact women as some health officials are calling for women to avoid pregnancy even though they have limited reproductive health access in some of the affected countries. They also examine the role of the U.S. government in addressing Zika and its impact on women in Latin America and the Caribbean.Perspective Read More
Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the Zubik v. Burwell case, another challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this time to the contraceptive coverage requirement brought by nonprofit corporations. After the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, this already complicated and charged case has taken on an additional question: …News Release Read More
The rapid spread of the Zika virus in the Latin America and the Caribbean region, the appearances of cases of Zika in the United States, and the association between Zika infection and serious birth defects has generated attention and concern among the public, policymakers, and the media. The WHO declared…Event Read More
Contraceptive Coverage at the Supreme Court Zubik v. Burwell: Does the Law Accommodate or Burden Nonprofits’ Religious Beliefs?
This brief explains the legal issues raised by Zubik v. Burwell and discusses the influence of the Hobby Lobby decision on the case before the Supreme Court and the potential impact of a tie decision.Issue Brief Read More
On March 25th, the Supreme Court will hear two cases brought by for-profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage rule on religious grounds. These two corporations are Hobby Lobby, a national chain of craft stores owned by a Christian family and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinet manufacturer, owned by a Mennonite family. Beyond the impact on the ACA and contraceptive coverage, the Court’s decision may have implications for religious rights of employers and employees, as well as corporate and civil rights laws. This brief examines three fundamental questions raised by some of the 84 amicus briefs that have been submitted to the Court.Issue Brief Read More