State Efforts to Reject Contraceptive Coverage Laws on Religious Grounds; A Proposed House Bill Banning Funds to Planned Parenthood

Colorado

Focus on the Family, a right-wing Christian advocacy group, had proposed a ballot measure banning government interference with an individual or organization’s religious freedom. The organization, however, withdrew the measure in May. The group had promoted a similar measure in 2010, which it also withdrew.

The state Senate also rejected a symbolic measure in May urging Congress to pass the Blunt amendment.

Georgia

The state Senate passed legislation in March exempting a religious employer from Georgia’s contraceptive coverage law, which currently does not permit any employer to refrain from covering contraception. The bill was not taken up in the House, and the legislative session has adjourned for the year.

Idaho

Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) is considering a nonbinding resolution passed earlier this year by the state House and Senate urging Congress and President Obama to invalidate the federal contraceptive coverage guarantee.

The Idaho House also introduced a bill to exempt insurance plans from contraceptive coverage under state law, but the bill never got out of committee.

Michigan

In February, the state House adopted a symbolic resolution urging President Obama to reverse the federal regulation on contraceptive coverage and asking Congress to pass legislation to protect the right of conscience. The state Senate has not introduced a companion bill.

Missouri

The state House and Senate passed legislation in May and March, respectively, expanding existing law allowing employees, insurers, or employers to be exempt from Missouri’s contraceptive coverage law due to a religious objection. On July 12 Gov. Jay Nixon (D) vetoed the legislation. But proponents of the measure may attempt to override his veto when the General Assembly reconvenes in September.

New Hampshire

While current statutes in New Hampshire do not permit any employer to opt out of covering contraception, a bill in the Senate attempted to amend the law by including language allowing religious employers to refuse to cover contraception if their objection is based on religious beliefs. These provisions were removed from the bill by the Senate in April.

In May the House added a provision to an unrelated Senate bill exempting employers formed with religious intent and businesses partially or completely owned by a religious society from providing contraceptive coverage if they have religious objections to birth control. The provision was removed in conference committee in late May.

North Dakota

Voters rejected a ballot initiative in June with nearly 65 percent of the vote that would have amended the state constitution to say that government “may not burden a person’s or religious organization’s religious liberty.” This was an expansive measure that would have allowed anyone to use religion as an excuse to discriminate or otherwise break a wide range of laws.

Oklahoma

The state does not have a contraceptive coverage law, but legislation before a conference committee included provisions allowing an employer or insurance plan enrollee to opt out of contraceptive or abortion coverage due to religious objections. The provisions were removed by the conference committee in May.

Conclusion

Because most state legislative sessions have ended for the year, it is unlikely that further activity will arise at the state level in 2012. Yet current litigation in federal courts around the country may keep this issue on the front burner. Depending on the political makeup of the state legislatures next year, we may yet see more bills introduced to curb women’s access to affordable contraception in 2013.

Jessica Arons is the Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and Elizabeth Rich is an intern with the program at the Center for American Progress.

Editor's Note: We just saw The New York Times editorial on Republicans VS. Women that notes the new spending bill's singling out of Planned Parenthood for funding prohibition: "The measure would bar Planned Parenthood’s network of clinics, which serve millions of women across the country, from receiving any federal money unless the health group agreed to no longer offer abortion services for which it uses no federal dollars — a patently unconstitutional provision."

We found the provision buried at the end of the bill:

SEC. 536. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any affiliate or clinic of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. unless such entities certify that Planned Parenthood Federation of America affiliates and clinics will not per17 form, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion.

This limitation shall not apply to an abortion if the pregnancy is the result of an act of
rape or incest; or in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is per formed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall seek repayment of any Federal assistance received by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., or 6 any affiliate or clinic of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc., if it violates the terms of the certification required by this section.

See also:

Infographic: Women's Preventive Services Now Covered Under Obamacare by Jessica Arons
Young Women and Reproductive Health Care by Jessica Arons, Lucy Panza, and Lindsay Rosenthal
Video: Young Americans: What No-Cost Contraception Means to Us

Pages: 1 · 2

News and Issues, Issues, Politics, Government, Senior Women Web, Sightings Add comments