#thanksbc

Zubik v. Burwell: The Birth Control Case That Continues What Hobby Lobby Started

Today, on the 6th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments from bosses trying to block women from the very promise the ACA made to them: birth control coverage without a copay. 

Sure, some employers have legitimate religious objections to contraception. That’s why the Obama administration created an accommodation (i.e., workaround) for religiously affiliated nonprofits for the ACA’s birth control provision. This accommodation permits those nonprofits to carve out coverage, but still requires insurance companies to cover birth control without a copay.

But the faith-based organizations in the Zubik case oppose birth control so much that they don’t even want to fill out the form set up just for them — the very same form that enables them not to cover birth control. 

If this sounds wild to you, it is. The ACA expanded access to no-copay birth control to more than 55 million women —  an extraordinary achievement. The ACA birth control benefit has also saved women $1.4 billion a year on birth control pills alone — showing the clear economic impact that access to copay-free birth control has on women’s lives. 

If that weren’t enough to show you just how important no copay birth control is, just consider that before the ACA’s no copay birth control benefit was implemented, women spent 30-44% of their out-of-pocket health care costs on contraception.

And this critical fact: 

99% of women will use birth control in their lifetime. 

But anti-birth control bosses want you to think this case is just about a small group of nuns. The reality is that Zubik v. Burwell could have far-reaching implications at huge organizations that cover thousands of people’s health insurance — like the staff and students at Catholic universities and colleges. 

In June we’ll hear the verdict in Zubik v. Burwell, which is actually one of several consolidated cases brought by religiously affiliated nonprofits that object to the birth control accommodation. In the meantime, here’s what you need to remember: This case is not about religious freedom. It is about limiting women’s access to health care.