"Worrying over trifles”: The Importance of Contraceptives

Michael Gomez

Interdisciplinary Writing

Reilly

"Worrying over trifles”: The Importance of Contraceptives to Working Women

In discussions of Health Care reform, one controversial issue is birth control. On the one hand, religious institutions and supporters like Hobby Lobby argue that providing for birth control contradicts their religious practice. On the other hand, groups like Faithful America, and UltraViolet contend that these laws are about improving women's health through the availability of contraceptives. Others even maintain health care reform puts an unnecessary strain on employers by having to pay for universal access to birth control. My own view is that birth control access is essential to equality in the work field. It gives women access to medications and tools that are necessary for healthy living and achieving their highest economic potential.

President Obama and his Affordable Care Act, unofficially named Obamacare, have aimed to extend the benefits of health care to millions of Americans in the coming years. One of the stipulations of Obamacare is the requirement for employers to provide their full time employees with health insurance including giving co-pay free birth control and contraceptive access to women. The issue of birth control and contraceptive availability soon became a battleground, with women's health in the balance.

On March 25, 2014 the Green family,owners of the company Hobby Lobby filed a lawsuit against the extended health care act on the grounds that their  "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." Most notably they aimed to ban the coverage of emergency contraceptives, such as the morning after pills like Plan B. Hobby Lobby is against only four out of the twenty forms of birth control covered under the Affordable Care Act, because "These abortion-causing drugs go against our faith," said David Green. The Green family feels that the drugs covered under the health care extension go against their religious beliefs, and it is their right to practice their religion and refuse using them.On June 30th, 2014 the United States Supreme Court in a split decision offered the following judgement, “Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test.”(8) The RFRA,  Religious Freedom Restoration Act, essentially forbids a government interest from interfering with a sincerely held religious belief. Five out of nine Justices felt that the health care extension put a strain on Hobby Lobby by requiring them to provide for the contraceptives or pay a hefty fines that amounted to 1.3 million a day for the arts and crafts giant. The supreme court justice’s went on to further define the limitations of the decision by limiting its actions to “closely held” companies. “Closely held” is defined by a company having at least fifty percent of its owning held by six or fewer people. The decision was regarded as a win for religious freedom by Hobby Lobby and it’s supporters, but ultimately this case will have repercussions that will affect working women in a decidedly negative way

While I do agree that religious freedom is a tenet of the United States and should be protected as a fundamental right, peoples physical well being should be priority number one.This paper is not an argument against religion or its beliefs but how those beliefs have a real world effect on women. The court decision does more harm to women than good to religion. It allows a company to associate itself with a religious belief that takes priority over that of the employees.  In her dissent of the case ruling Justice Ruth Ginsburg implored that ,”It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure”(64).It is important to note that Hobby Lobby is a family owned business that employs over 23,000 people of varying religions and creeds. Justice Ginsburg warns of the hypocritical nature of the court decision, that can potentially infringe on thousands of women's religious and health rights in order to uphold the religious beliefs of a single corporation. Further more Justice Ginsburg asserts, “Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults”(82). The Justice felt the need to explain that just because the government is allowing for the coverage of birth control it is not forcing women to use them. She further imparts that the law is not requiring women to use one form of birth control or any at all. Justice Ginsburg believes that it is a woman's right to make her own choices in regards to her health. Making options available to women merely gives them more power by allowing choice.

The court decision raises the concern that bosses will now be involved in the health choices of their female employees. By allowing a company to decide what contraceptives it wants to cover it takes the power of choice away from their female employees and places it into the hands of, predominantly male bosses. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr did try to limit which companies can file for exemption by limiting it to privately own companies, but according to data by economic conglomerate Forbes, private businesses account for, “441 companies that made this year’s roster employ 6.2 million people and account for $1.8 trillion in revenues”. If only half of their employees are female, that amounts to 3.1 million female workers that could possibly have their rights infringed if their employers seek exemptions similar to Hobby Lobby. Some companies may seek exemption status as a means to cut costs, at the expense of their female employees.

One train of thought is that the cost of covering birth control and contraceptives for female employees can quickly reach staggering numbers. Former Senator Rick Santorum in an interview said, “You don't need insurance for these types of relatively small expenditures. “ His attitude, is that birth control should be a private expense and is unjustly thrust upon a third party. He feels that for an individual it is a small expense but for a company, those small expenses add up rather quickly. The search for alternative solutions is currently in debate between competing politicians in Colorado. Republican candidate Cory Gardner’s proposal is to allow the sale of birth control pills over-the-counter, allowing for their purchase around the clock and without a prescription. He wants to remove the middleman and promises women, “more, rights, more freedom, and more control for you”. The problem here is the FDA decides which drugs can be bought over the counter, not a congressman. And the proposed option says nothing about the women that will now have to pay over the counter prices for something that can be covered by insurance without a co-pay. What makes more sense for women, free or full price?

I have worked at a Kmart retail store for two years. This location has an employment total of roughly fifty people. In my two years of employment there have been seven pregnancies. That is seven maternity leaves, and seven employees hired to help fill the positions while these women started their families. The company could have saved money by providing and educating all employees of the available contraceptive care coverage as opposed to paying for the maternity leave, replacement employees, and drop in productivity. I am not saying that birth control would guarantee that all seven of my coworkers would not have gotten pregnant, but their demographic, young adult minimum wage workers, have the most to lose with an unplanned child. If contraceptive could have helped one of them, then both the employee and the store benefit from the aid. A factcheck.org article sites that according “to a Guttmacher’s [study] $21.40 per employee per year number, was reasonable compared with the cost of an unintended pregnancy, which averaged $5,500 for delivery”. This means that an employer can cover an employee's birth control for 257 years at the same cost as one unintended pregnancy delivery. While numbers on the costs of each individual drug have varied from location to location, the consensus among economic officials is that the overall cost of contraceptives is far more efficient than that of unplanned pregnancies. The biggest problem with the proposed alternatives to employer provided birth control is that the cost are put onto the employees. Within a certain salary range, birth control is affordable, but to many lower paying employee’s it puts an unnecessary strain on their pocketbook. Lower wage earning women are precisely the people that need the most help. In fact single mother households account for one quarter of all US homes, and typically hold low paying jobs.The shame is that some of these companies are multi-million dollar corporations, and instead of putting the cost of birth control on them, these alternative means aim to put the costs on hard working woman.

Although the health benefit exemptions may seem of concern to only a small group of companies, it should concern anyone who cares about women’s lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The combination of the Hobby Lobby decision and for-profit business agendas can lead to potentially millions of female workers losing their employer covered birth control. Why is this important one might ask? The simple answer would be, equality. As defined by the Department of Health, “Equality is about ‘creating a fairer society, where everyone can participate and has the opportunity to fulfil their potential’” (DoH, 2004). Basically, equality is allowing everyone the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Access to free, employer covered, birth control and contraceptives gives working women that ability. The Planned Parenthood organization explains, “women will be able to plan and space the births of their children, which will help them invest in their education and careers and continue to provide the income their families rely on.” Children take an enormous amount of time, effort and focus, which could be geared towards a career or education. The freedom of choice gives women control over their lives and doesn’t allow one mistake to dictate their lives and potentially derail their careers or educational plans. Without easy access to contraceptives many women, specifically low wage workers, risk an unwanted pregnancy that could put their life on hold. The state that a mother is in also affects her children. I well educated mother with a good paying job is likely to have children that stay within or exceed their mothers socio-economic sphere. Proper family planning not only leads to better lives for women it also allows them to raise children in a better environment.

Birth control also has many other health benefits that can help women lead a healthy more enjoyable life. Dr. Janis Graham writes that birth control can lower the probability of ovarian cancer by up to 70 percent if taken regularly, clearer skin, give lighter/less painful periods, PMS relief and control when a period occurs.  Painful menstruation is the leading cause of lost time from school and work among women in their teens and 20s. The benefits to women's education and employment are simple, more time at work and school means more time to work and grow. How can a woman learn if she isn't in class? How can she gain a promotion if she has to take days off work? Men do not have to feel, as my girlfriend has described, “like your uterus is trying to kill itself”. Periods come with a bevy of side effects, cramps, headaches, bleeding to say the least. It is in an employee’s best interest to provide drugs that help alleviate and minimize these symptoms that on average half of their workers deal with. Birth controls also allow women to plan when they have their periods, which can prove highly beneficial in avoiding sick days away from work and school. This is a matter of giving women the tools to succeed and with their success the company’s/classroom’s as well.

The female worker must deal with reproductive processes that male workers do not have to worry about. It is this distinction that necessitates the need for universal birth control and contraceptive coverage under health care reform. Working women need these materials in order to help create an equal working environment that allows for optimal health, pay and opportunity. Economically speaking it is the cheaper option, and places lower wage earning women in a favorable spot to improve their lives, while saving companies the costs associated with an unwanted pregnancy and maternity leave. It doesn’t infringe on religious freedoms, because the matter is about choice, birth control is not mandatory. In contrast, by restricting female employee’s birth control, companies like Hobby Lobby are in fact projecting their religious beliefs onto their employees. Morally, it does not force a woman to have a child they are not prepared to support financially, economically and sometimes even emotionally. Ultimately, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed the concern best when she felt the need to defend her dissent to the Hobby Lobby decision, “Contraceptive protection is something every woman must have access to, to control her own destiny”.