On Thursday, New York State’s highest court upheld the Women’s Health and Wellness Act over the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations.
The 2002 bill requires company health insurance policies that provide coverage for prescription drugs include contraception. Yet a group including eight Catholic and two Baptist organizations challenged the law, requesting to exempt religious schools, hospitals and social service organizations on the grounds that the bill forces them to violate the mandates of their faith.
The Women’s Health and Wellness Act was an 18-page decision with the intention to improve women’s health rights; one study included in the decision revealed that women paid 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket costs for health care, which was primarily due to reproductive health services.
The New York State Catholic Conference may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, although I doubt it will do much; a challenge to an almost identical CA bill was dismissed in 2004 by the California Supreme Court. I don’t think NY will let us down either. (Now if the love would only spread to the remainder of the country...)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Women's health prioritized in NY..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/4168
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
My father worked for a Catholic Hospital in CT while I was in High School and even though my contracpetive pills were for a medical reason (unbearable cramping and super heavy periods) our insurance refused to cover them. Thank God my Ob/Gyn was thoughtful enough to provide me with 6-8 months worth of samples every time I stopped by her office! Health insurance in this country is a joke to begin with, I can't believe that there are people who believe that it's perfectly reasonable to make sure that what little insurance we have doesn't cover our basic needs!
Kate
>>women paid 68 percent more than men in out-of-pocket costs for health care, which was primarily due to reproductive health services
For a majority of women, fertility is not a serious medical condition but rather a natural state of health.
Why should insurance companies cover contraception for women (or men for that matter), especially when it is not used for a medical condition?
Pregnancy is not a disease, and there is an "over the counter" alternative to contraception -- Natural Family Planning (no, it's not your mother's rhythm method either).
Other forms of contraception are available over the counter, so why must companies be forced to pay for contraception?
Some would say that since viagra is covered, then contraception should also be included. But this is short sighted - Viagra is used to treat a dysfunction, whereas for most women contraception is used for non-medical reasons.
hey NRFC
read the above post. and while pregnancy isnt a "disease" it most certainly is some kind of medical condition.
NRFC - if you actually read the comment before yours, you would see that birth control pills - and other forms of birth control - are used for purposes other than birth control. But aside from that, birth control is medication that is used as a preventative measure for something that does cause major health concerns. Ergo, medical reasons.
Considering the cancer risks certain contraceptives pose (as well as other risks), there are usually other safer drugs to treat such conditions. More info on the cancer risk is available at:
http://www.noroomforcontraception.com/Articles/Contraception-Breast-Cancer.htm
But be honest -- the real push has to do with covering contraception for general usage, under the guise of "medical necessity" for certain conditions.
And while pregnancy does cause health concerns, most women aren't using contraception to prevent them -- they are using it to prevent having more children. This is not a medical reason, and the insurance companies should not obligated to provide coverage for....
Oh, come on NRFC! You are saying contraception is not a “medical necessity� (because our natural state is barefoot and pregnant I suppose?) but Viagra is? Well, I think if you can’t get it up maybe you ain’t supposed to be fucking. Pregnancy is not a disease but certainly it is a medical condition. So do you suggest that health insurance should not cover costs related to birth and pregnancy either? Access to different form of cheap and effective contraception is every woman’s right. It is also necessary for a society that doesn’t want millions of unwanted babies on their hands.
I would rather take low dosage birth control to manage my endometriosis than be denied coverage by my employer on "moral" grounds and face chemical insertion into menopause, painful surgeries and painful, painful periods.
I wouldn't bother arguing if I were you: All you guys have to do is click on NRFC's name to see what s/he is really about.
Don't pay any attention to the bullshit of No Room for Contraception (NRFC). This is a group that says contraception is like assisted suicide and that birth control leads to homosexuality.
They also try to mislead women into saying they're about "organic sex."
Sorry NRFC, I don't like people who lie to women on my site. Fuck off.
Jessica, have I mentioned lately that you rock? Because you do.
;)
Feministing rulez.
Yeah, but then the misleading comments tend to get canonized instead of refuted.
In reality, the risk of breast cancer ranges from overblown to nonexistent. The main risks of the pill are stroke, blood clots, and heart attacks, and even they are only likely to occur in groups that already have a high risk of getting any of the three conditions - smokers, older women, women with high cholesterol, etc.
Just a nitpick:
The New York State Catholic Conference may appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, although I doubt it will do much; a challenge to an almost identical CA bill was dismissed in 2004 by the California Supreme Court. I don’t think NY will let us down either.
The Supreme Court they would be appealing to is the U.S. Supreme Court. NY didn't let us down, but I'm less confident about SCOTUS if they grant cert.