If corporations are people with a right to refuse to comply with health-care requirements based on religious beliefs, it stands to reason that they would not only be permitted to refuse birth control coverage but other types of coverage as well.
It’s been said over and over again that birth control is “life-saving” for some women, who need it to aid conditions such as endometriosis and ovarian cysts. But people also, overwhelmingly, use birth control to do exactly as its name implies: to control their fertility. Let’s stop hiding some of the lives we fight for under a “tactical” shroud.
Louisiana health officials appear to have cut funding for the state’s Medicaid program for pregnant women based on a typo on the Affordable Care Act website, Healthcare.gov.
The leaders of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation have invited themselves into their employees’ bedrooms and medicine cabinets under the guise of religious freedom, and these bosses are seriously out of line.
People are having all kinds of sex, regardless of how they identify their orientation; we need a health-care system that is prepared to address everyone’s questions, issues, and concerns about sex, sexuality, and sexual and reproductive health.
No one should be forced to choose between her job and her dignity, but that’s what I feel I’m being forced to do right now.
According to the Associated Press, the Susan B. Anthony List’s political action committee plans to spend around $10 million on this election.
Despite the gender-identity nondiscrimination provision of the Affordable Care Act, doctors say some insurance companies are rejecting coverage of basic preventive care.
What conservatives really mean when they talk about “religious freedom” has been revealed already by their longstanding crusade against the birth control benefit afforded by the Affordable Care Act. For them, having religious freedom requires the right to discriminate—against specific people, and in a specific way.
The “boss bill” is designed to close a loophole that could make room for employer discrimination; it would prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee on the basis of the employee’s (or a dependent’s) reproductive health decisions, including a decision to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service.