2
 February 10, 2012 President Barack Obama The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington D.C. 20500 Dear President Obama: We write as members of the New York State Bipartisan Legislative Pro-Choice Caucus to thank you for your courageous stand in support of access to reproductive health services. We urge you to stand firm in the face of pressure from a vocal minority to reverse your recently issued administrative rule that would require health insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays. The rule as adopted already contains a strong exemption allowing approximately 335,000 churches/houses of worship to refuse to provide birth control coverage for their e mployees. This exemption is nearly identical to the exemption in New York’s contraceptive coverage law.   New York helped paved the way for greater access to contraceptives by enacting th e Women’s Health and Wellness Act in 2002. This legislation extended broad consume r protections for women’s health care by requiring employee health insurance plans to cover breast and cervical cancer screening, osteoporosis exams, and prescription contraceptives when the plan covered prescriptions. The impetus for this legislation was the finding that women were saddled with greater out-of-pocket costs for health care services then males, mainly due to the common exclusion of contraceptive coverage.  New York’s religious exemption, upon which the federal e xemption is based, strikes a careful and ap propriate balance of protecting religious freedom and preventing discrimination against female employees. Under the law, employers engaged in purely religious activities   such as Churches and seminaries   are exempted from having to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. However, employers that are engaged in secular activities   such as religiously affiliated hospitals and social services agencies, who do not primarily serve and employ those of the same faith -- are not exempted. Their employees -- nurses, janitors, laundry room staff and the like -- often come from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and should not be expected or forced to subscribe to the religious views of their employer on matters of reproductive health. This law has withstood constitutional challenge, and was upheld by all three levels of New York state courts. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to he ar the case. California’s contraceptive equity law, which is similar to  New York’s, has also withstood legal challenges.  Nationally, there is widespread support for this benefit, even among Catholics, and strong opposition to discriminating against women by taking away their health care coverage. A new Public Policy Polling Poll shows 56 percent of voters support the birth control coverage benefit, including 53 percent of Catholic voters, and 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: 2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

8/3/2019 2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2012-2-10-letter-on-contraceptive-coverage 1/2

 February 10, 2012

President Barack Obama

The White House1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

We write as members of the New York State Bipartisan Legislative Pro-Choice Caucus to thank you for yourcourageous stand in support of access to reproductive health services. We urge you to stand firm in the face of pressure from a vocal minority to reverse your recently issued administrative rule that would require health

insurance plans to cover birth control without co-pays.

The rule as adopted already contains a strong exemption allowing approximately 335,000 churches/houses of worship to refuse to provide birth control coverage for their employees. This exemption is nearly identical to

the exemption in New York’s contraceptive coverage law. 

 New York helped paved the way for greater access to contraceptives by enacting the Women’s Health andWellness Act in 2002. This legislation extended broad consumer protections for women’s health care by

requiring employee health insurance plans to cover breast and cervical cancer screening, osteoporosis exams,and prescription contraceptives when the plan covered prescriptions. The impetus for this legislation was the

finding that women were saddled with greater out-of-pocket costs for health care services then males, mainly

due to the common exclusion of contraceptive coverage.

 New York’s religious exemption, upon which the federal exemption is based, strikes a careful and appropriatebalance of protecting religious freedom and preventing discrimination against female employees. Under the

law, employers engaged in purely religious activities – such as Churches and seminaries – are exempted from

having to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. However, employers that are engaged in secularactivities – such as religiously affiliated hospitals and social services agencies, who do not primarily serve and

employ those of the same faith -- are not exempted. Their employees -- nurses, janitors, laundry room staff and

the like -- often come from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and should not be expected or forced tosubscribe to the religious views of their employer on matters of reproductive health.

This law has withstood constitutional challenge, and was upheld by all three levels of New York state courts. In

2007, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case. California’s contraceptive equity law, which is similar to New York’s, has also withstood legal challenges. 

Nationally, there is widespread support for this benefit, even among Catholics, and strong opposition to

discriminating against women by taking away their health care coverage. A new Public Policy Polling Poll

shows 56 percent of voters support the birth control coverage benefit, including 53 percent of Catholic voters,and 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.

Page 2: 2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

8/3/2019 2012-2-10 Letter on Contraceptive Coverage

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2012-2-10-letter-on-contraceptive-coverage 2/2

We urge you to stand firm in upholding this administrative rule, and to resist pressure from a vocal butunrepresentative minority to expand the exemption to the contraceptive coverage requirement.

Sincerely,

Ellen Jaffee Teresa Sayward Liz Krueger Andrea Stewart-Cousins

Assembly Member Assembly Member State Senator State SenatorCaucus Co-chair Caucus Co-chair Caucus Co-chair Caucus Co-chair

Thomas J. Abinanti Harry B. Bronson John L. Sampson Tony Avella

Assembly Member Assembly Member Senate Minority Leader State Senator

Kevin A. Cahill Steve Engelbright David Carlucci Thomas K. Duane

Assembly Member Assembly Member State Senator State Senator

Sandra Galef Richard N. Gottfried Ruth Hassell-Thompson Velmanette Montgomery

Assembly Member Assembly Member State Senator State Senator

Andrew Hevesi Rhoda S. Jacobs Suzi Oppenheimer Jose PeraltaAssembly Member Assembly Member State Senator State Senator

Rory Lancman Barbara S. Lifton Gustavo Rivera Daniel Squadron

Assembly Member Assembly Member State Senator State Senator

Donna A. Lupardo Joel M. Miller Joan Millman Toby A. Stavisky

Assembly Member Assembly Member Assembly Member State Senator

Crystal Peoples-Stokes  

Amy R. Paulin Crystal Peoples-Stokes Linda Rosenthal Addie RussellAssembly Member Assembly Member Assembly Member Assembly Member

Michelle Schimel Michelle Titus

Assembly Member Assembly Member