Women’s Health PolicySee more about Women’s Health Policy
- view as grid
- view as list
This policy insight examines the Hyde Amendment, an annually approved law that bans the use of federal funds to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is a result of rape, incest, or endangerment of the life of a woman. The Hyde Amendment has become the focus of debate in the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton is the first presidential candidate to openly support lifting the Hyde bans on federal funding for abortion, while Donald Trump recently endorsed the codification of the law and established a Pro-life coalition. This perspective details the federal programs that are affected by the Hyde Amendment, provides estimates on the share of women insured by Medicaid affected by the law, the impact on their access to abortion services, and the potential effect if the law were to be repealed or codified.
On the eve of the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, a new Kaiser Family Foundation analysis finds 25 states either bar abortion coverage in Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace plans or limit it to cases of rape or incest or when the woman’s life is endangered. In an…
This brief reviews current federal and state policies on Medicaid and insurance coverage of abortion services. It presents national and state estimates on the availability of abortion coverage for women enrolled in private plans, Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace plans and Medicaid.
This partnership survey from The Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation explores what feminism means in today’s America, providing a detailed look at the complex views that both women and men hold about the word and the social movement that bears its name. The survey assesses the public’s priorities for improving women’s lives, their views on the relevance of the women’s movement, the role of government in promoting gender equality, their beliefs about discrimination, levels of social and civic engagement, and views on political and policy issues such as equal pay, birth control coverage, and abortion.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.