{"id":3038,"date":"2024-07-12T15:43:44","date_gmt":"2024-07-12T15:43:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=3038"},"modified":"2024-07-12T15:43:44","modified_gmt":"2024-07-12T15:43:44","slug":"the-court-case-that-could-upend-access-to-free-birth-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=3038","title":{"rendered":"The Court Case That Could Upend Access To Free Birth Control"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

A lawsuit winding its way through the courts could undermine the power of federal agencies to mandate the services health insurance providers must cover. And that could threaten access to free birth control for millions of Americans<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The case is called Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra<\/em><\/a>, and it was brought by plaintiffs looking to strike down Obamacare\u2019s requirements that private insurers cover certain kinds of preventive care without cost sharing. (Think everything from no-cost cancer screenings to free IUDs.)<\/p>\n

Studies have shown the requirements to cover preventive care<\/a> have increased consumers\u2019 use of short- and long-term birth control methods<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Without those nationwide standards, the United States would return to a \u201cwild West\u201d dynamic \u201cin which insurers and employers pick and choose which services they want to cover or which services they want to charge for,\u201d said Zachary Baron<\/strong>, a health policy researcher at Georgetown Law<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs, a group of individuals and Christian-owned businesses, argue the three groups that set coverage standards \u2014 including an independent advisory panel to the Health Resources and Services Administration <\/strong>\u2014 haven\u2019t been properly appointed by Congress.<\/p>\n

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a self-described \u201cmixed bag\u201d of an opinion<\/a>. It agreed that one body hadn\u2019t been properly appointed, making its recommendations since the Affordable Care Act became law unconstitutional. But the court said only the plaintiffs get to ignore its standards.<\/p>\n

The appeals court sent questions about the other two groups \u2014 including the advisory panel to HRSA that makes recommendations on contraception \u2014 back to a lower court to consider.<\/p>\n

The case is likely headed back to U.S. District Judge Reed O\u2019Connor<\/strong>. O\u2019Connor\u2019s previous ruling that one body hadn\u2019t been properly appointed was supported by the appeals court. His remedy \u2014 blocking its mandates nationwide \u2014 wasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor is notoriously hostile to the ACA \u2014 he struck down<\/a> the law in 2018. The Supreme Court later overturned that ruling.<\/p>\n

And that makes reproductive rights advocates nervous.<\/p>\n

O\u2019Connor \u201cis someone who is willing to impose remedies where he takes access to care away from everybody in the country,\u201d said Gretchen Borchelt<\/strong>, vice president of reproductive rights and health at the National Women\u2019s Law Center<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

A lack of federal requirements for birth control coverage would leave it up to the states to mandate what insurers have to provide. Fourteen states and D.C. currently protect<\/a> the right to contraception.<\/p>\n

But states can go only so far with those rules, because of a federal law that prevents them from regulating employer-funded health plans, which cover about 65 percent <\/strong>of workers<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the plaintiffs win here, it would leave significant gaps in coverage that states would be unable to fill,\u201d Baron said.<\/p>\n

\n

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n