The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires nonprofit employers to provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plans by Aug. 1, 2013, regardless of any conflicting religious beliefs.
In August 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued an interim ruling, which required that most health insurance plans cover preventive health services for women without charging a copayment, coinsurance payment, or deductible.
The final ruling, however, makes it mandatory for all religious organizations, including universities, charities, and hospitals (but excluding the Church and primary and secondary schools affiliated with religious organizations), to come into compliance with the law and offer contraceptive services approved by the FDA. This includes "Plan B" post-intercourse emergency contraception, sterilization, intrauterine devices, hormonal methods, and patient education and counseling. Abortion services will not be covered.
Over 200,000 comments were filed on the interim ruling, though no additional public comments were taken on the final ruling.
Religious organizations have been granted an additional year to comply with the new standards to allow them more time and flexibility to adapt to the new rule. Employers who decide to take advantage of this additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. Catholic colleges will most likely take advantage of this option, according to Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.
Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said that scientists have abundant evidence to prove that birth control has health benefits for women and their families, including the reduction of health costs. She believes that "this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious freedom and increasing access to important preventive services." "The administration remains fully committed to its partnerships with faith-based organizations, which promote healthy communities and serve the common good," Sebelius said.
Additionally, Neera Tanden, president of the Center for American Progress, issued a statement claiming that the final ruling was "a tremendous victory for both women's health and their basic health needs. Women of all religious backgrounds use birth control, and they deserve to have it covered by their employer-sponsored health plans."
Similarly, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro issued a statement on behalf of her membership in the House Appropriations Committee stating that she was "encouraged that the Obama Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services have made the right choice concerning women's access to healthcare services."
Many religious communities, however, have spoken out against this rule, including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The director of media relations for this organization, Sister Mary Ann Walsh, told Bloomberg BNA that this rule is "unconscionable" because it is "the first time the federal government has ever ordered citizens to pay for services that violate their conscience." Walsh added, "We certainly are going to challenge it in one way or another."
Negative reactions to the law are filtering in from the political sector as well. Representative Joseph R. Pitts, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's Health Subcommittee, said in an e-mail to Bloomberg BNA that the new ruling is "shameful" and that "the real tragedy is forcing religious employers to provide health care benefits against their conscience."
Senator Orrin Hatch echoed Pitts' statement and asserted that the issue at hand is not that the religious institutions have more time to comply with the new obligation, but rather that "they're forced to comply at all."
Students here at BC are divided in their reactions to this new law, as well.
Sabrina Caraffa, CSON '15, stated that, as a member of the Pro-life club on campus, she believes that "birth control and preventative techniques are an excellent way of avoiding pregnancies and, therefore, cutting down the number of abortions." Yet, she added, "Forcing religious organizations to provide these services is not ethically correct because it infringes on the concept of separation of church and state and goes against their belief system."
Caraffa sees the law greatly affecting the Jesuit community as a whole, and says, "It will be necessary for them to form a response to the law and declare their stance on the issue, especially the Jesuits who have a presence on college campuses, like at BC, because their opinions and views weigh heavily on our community."
Similarly, Ariana Caraffa, A&S '15, strongly disagrees with the act because "not only does it seem to target religion specifically, but it impedes on the right to exercise religion freely. The act is a direct violation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it forces religious institutions (including our campus) to provide items that go against our religious beliefs."
"This act takes away this freedom in many aspects and could potentially be an avenue for the complete absence of religious freedom in America's future," Caraffa stated.
Other BC students are in favor of the act, such as Jessica Parry, co-chair of BC Students for Sexual Health (BCSSH) and A&S '14, because she believes that it provides women with the "opportunity to decide if they need contraception without having to worry about the monetary repercussions."
Parry recognizes the opposition that some religious organizations may have against this method, but adds, "If they are requiring people to be under their health care, they should provide for the needs of everyone." She sees it as BC's responsibility to cover the needs of all students on their plan, regardless of specific religious beliefs.