The Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage provision made access to the full range of contraceptive methods available to millions of women with private insurance at no cost. Despite broad public support, this provision has been challenged by religious employers, with two cases reaching the Supreme Court. It is unclear how…
- 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.
In this issue of the Women’s Health Issues journal, Alina Salganicoff and Laurie Sobel discuss how the private insurance reforms and expansions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) have affected access to coverage for women and where gaps remain.
A new Washington Post/Kaiser Family Foundation survey 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. Featured in a series of articles and interactive features online at…
This report maps the network of international assistance to support family planning and reproductive health in countries around the globe. The report is part of a series that examines the donor nations and multilateral organizations involved in addressing different global health challenges in recipient countries worldwide.
The Supreme Court is expected to reach a decision by the end of June, 2014 on the cases brought forth by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties, two for profit corporations challenging the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement. The plaintiffs contend that the requirement that they include coverage for certain contraceptive services (emergency contraceptive pills and intrauterine devices) in the insurance plans “substantially burdens” both the corporation’s and the owners’ religious rights. During the arguments, several of the justices discussed the extent to which the corporations did or not did not have a choice in offering coverage to their workers. In this brief, we explore some of the factors influencing coverage decisions and possible consequences for women and employers given possible Supreme Court decision options: either upholding the contraceptive coverage requirement, or in favor of Hobby Lobby.
This brief explains the contraceptive coverage rule under the ACA, the impact it has had on coverage, and how the new regulations issued by the Trump administration have changed the contraceptive coverage requirement for employers with religious and moral objections to contraception and the women who receive coverage through their plans.
Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: Key Findings from the 2017 Kaiser Women’s Health Survey
This brief presents survey findings from the 2017 Kaiser Women’s Health Survey, a nationally representative survey of women conducted in the summer and fall of 2017, on coverage and use of sexual health services among women ages 18 to 44 years old. The data presented is from the newest 2017 survey, but some findings presented in this brief include trends from earlier surveys that the Kaiser Family Foundation conducted in 2004, 2008, and 2013.
Before the ACA was passed, many states had enacted contraceptive equity laws that required plans to treat contraceptives in the same way they covered other services. In addition, since the ACA was passed, a number of states have enacted laws that basically codify in state legislation the ACA benefit rules. This issue brief provides an update on the status of the continuing litigation on the federal contraceptive requirement and explains the interplay between the federal and state contraceptive coverage laws and the implications for employers and women.
Ask KFF: Alina Salganicoff Answers 3 Questions on Final Title X Regulations for Family Planning Clinics
In light of the new final rule regarding use of Title X federal funds for family planning clinics, Alina Salganicoff, Vice President and Director of Women’s Health Policy at KFF, answers three questions about their impact on women and the clinics that treat them.