Supreme Court ruling not a huge threat to birth control
NEW YORK — Don't expect a wave of companies to stop paying for employees' contraceptives after this week's Supreme Court decision allowing some businesses to refuse to cover birth control.
Some business owners say they won't pay for any forms of contraception. Others say they'll continue paying for most types, but not those that take effect after conception and that some people believe are akin to abortion.
But while the ruling applies to many of the country's businesses, in reality, relatively few workers are likely to lose all contraceptive coverage. Many companies of all sizes paid for contraception by choice, even before the Affordable Care Act required it, believing it's an important benefit that helps them attract and retain good workers. A survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation found 85 percent of large employers paid for contraceptives before the health care law required it.
Even employers who want to opt out of some forms of birth-control coverage see covering others as important.
“We want to provide for good health care for our people. We just don't want to fund abortive procedures,” said Mike Sharrow, owner of C12 Group in San Antonio. His company, which provides faith-based counseling for business owners, has always paid for what he calls traditional forms of contraception, such as birth-control pills.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that some businesses can, because of their religious beliefs, choose not to comply with the health care law's requirement that contraception coverage be provided to workers at no extra charge. The 5-4 ruling has the Obama administration looking for another way to provide contraception for women who work for those companies.
The ruling applies to businesses that are closely held, with five or fewer individuals owning more than 50 percent of the company's stock. By some estimates, 90 percent of businesses are closely held and employ about half of the nation's work force.
Business owners interviewed by The Associated Press that wanted to opt out of contraceptive coverage said their insurers were still trying to figure out how to change their policies. It's possible employees might still be able to get birth-control coverage through their plans but pay for that portion of their insurance themselves.
The contraceptives at issue in the court's decision are two known as morning-after pills, the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella; and two intrauterine devices, which are implantable devices inserted into the uterus to prevent pregnancy. Many owners objected to them because they're designed to work after conception occurs. However, on Tuesday, the court left in place lower court rulings in other cases that allowed businesses to refuse to pay for all methods of government-approved contraception.
The case decided by the Supreme Court on Monday involved two companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. About 50 others also filed suit against the health care law's contraception requirement. Some received court injunctions allowing them not to pay for birth control; the Supreme Court's ruling is expected to allow them to continue that policy.
Triune Health Group Ltd. has been in touch with its broker to see how soon it can change its coverage to stop paying for all contraceptives, said Mary Anne Yep, co-owner of the Oak Brook, Ill., company that provides medical management services.
“We were ready to go when we heard the decision,” she said. Triune had filed lawsuits against the U.S. government and the state of Illinois because of requirements that they pay for contraception.
Weingartz Inc., which has five stores in Michigan selling lawn mowers and other outdoor equipment, stopped paying for all contraception, except when medically needed, since it won an injunction.
“We don't believe anybody else shouldn't have access to it. We just can't pay for it,” said Dan Weingartz, the company's president.
Christian publisher Tyndale House Publishers Inc., which filed a lawsuit, expects the Supreme Court ruling to clear the way for it to stop paying for morning-after pills and IUDs.
“We believe that those family businesses should have the religious freedom not to offer abortion-causing items through their employee health-care program,” Tyndale CEO Mark Taylor said in a statement. The Carol Stream, Ill., company publishes Christian books.
The businesses contacted by the AP all said their greatest concern was the government forcing them to pay for something that goes against their religious beliefs.
“Framing this as an issue of contraception is wrong. It's a battle against bullying by the government, telling us what to do,” said Yep, the Triune Health Group owner.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Drought opens Texas ranchers’ eyes to income options
- Energy sector adjusts to global oil plummet
- ‘Staff Pick’ is golden ticket on Kickstarter
- Diane Stafford: Consider digital footprint
- Agriculture prospects envisioned in Cuba
- Mind the time: Optimize last-minute shopping
- Kim Komando: Can you get a virus on your smartphone?
- EPA says it won’t regulate coal ash as hazardous waste
- 3 tips to use up health account funds
- Makers of wine corks have lost ground to screw tops
- Real estate union: Howard Hanna buys Langholz Wilson Ellis