Albany Times Union

Decision energizes abortion rights groups

Groups say ruling will be important on Election Day

- By Megan sauer ▶ Megan Sauer is a reporter for the Medill News Service and journalism master’s degree student at Northweste­rn University.

The recent Supreme Court ruling that upheld a Trump administra­tion regulation allowing employers and health insurers to opt out of contracept­ion coverage has energized the abortion rights movement, leaders say, even though it does not affect strong abortion-access laws in states including New York, which last year adopted the Reproducti­ve Health Act.

“We know that people have been paying attention to what the Trump administra­tion has been doing, in terms of rolling back access to reproducti­ve health care,” National Abortion and Reproducti­ve Rights Action League President Andrea Miller said. “I think you’re already starting to see it manifest in the (2018 midterm and presidenti­al primary) election results. We expect that it will be an important part of the considerat­ion that voters have when they go to the polls in November.”

Miller said support for reproducti­ve health care in New York has grown as the Trump administra­tion has threatened abortion and contracept­ion accessibil­ity by attempting to dismantle protection­s in the Affordable Care Act and nominating anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court.

The July Supreme Court ruling, which allows employers with religious objections to be exempt from providing health care insurance that includes contracept­ion coverage, is the latest example of decisions that energize the abortion rights movement in New York rather than demoralize it, she said.

“The issue of reproducti­ve health rights, particular­ly access to abortion, was really hot on the agenda, and it was a really big part of the reason that the state Senate f lipped [from Republican control to a Democratic majority),” Miller said. “Then in early 2019, the RHA passed. That would never have happened had it not been clear that voters, increasing­ly younger voters, were turning out in greater numbers and driving the concern.”

The Reproducti­ve Health Act, along with the Comprehens­ive Contracept­ion Coverage Act and the “Boss Bill,” emphasize women’s right to access abortion, receive contracept­ion coverage and provides protection­s to New Yorkers from federal intrusion.”

Anti-abortion groups also say they are strengthen­ed by this ruling. The Catholic Bishops of New York state said the Affordable Care Act’s contracept­ive mandate was “an intrusion into the religious liberty rights” of all religious employers who were “focused to pay for something contrary to their ethical and religious beliefs.”

“We are grateful for the current administra­tion’s efforts to protect religious freedom and to exempt religious organizati­ons from the contracept­ive mandate,” Kathleen Gallagher, director of Pro-life Activities for the New York state Catholic Conference, said in an email. “At the same time, we hold grave concerns with regard to other ways in which the current administra­tion is attempting to undo and wipe away essential parts of the Affordable Care Act, which will leave more American uninsured and without access to basic health care.”

But the Affordable Care Act and state laws don’t leave enough room for religious freedom, religious groups say. Vincent Bonventre, a law professor at Albany Law School, thinks women are entitled to the right to choose. However, he also believes it is an organizati­on’s right to sustain their religious freedom by not offering abortion insurance coverage.

While the anti-abortion versus abortion-rights debate seems clearcut, Miller suggests the values can co-exist through thoughtful laws and insurance policies.

“It is possible to create narrowly tailored exemptions that protect conscience that also ensure you are not barring or underminin­g access to care,” Miller said. “I think it really does a disservice to religious communitie­s to assume you can’t hold both religious views and a belief in people’s right and ability to make decisions that are best for themselves and their families around reproducti­on.”

Other religious organizati­ons, including the Religious Coalition For Reproducti­ve Choice, agree with Miller and contend the Supreme Court’s ruling is immoral as it prioritize­s religious freedoms of the employer and neglects those of the employee.

“[The upholding] is an imposition of one set of religious views on masses of individual­s,” said the Rev. Cari Jackson, who is the coalition’s director of spiritual care and activism. “Corporatio­ns should be required to provide, as part of their insurance package, reproducti­ve health care benefits.”

Jackson thinks both contracept­ion and abortion should be covered by employers because “privacy of conscience supersedes all other encyclical­s” in Catholicis­m. She also compared the current conf lict to a belief by “theologica­l Christian nationalis­ts” that same-sex marriage “was an infringeme­nt on their religious freedom.”

In 2017, the latest year for which numbers are available, 105,380 women had abortions in New York, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The research center estimated 8 percent of women in the state do not have abortion clinics in their counties. NARAL Pro-choice America say that indicates they still have work to do.

“There are still barriers and disparitie­s when it comes to geographic access and there are issues with some insures who still don’t cover these services, and that’s why some people fall through the cracks,” Miller said. “We need to address where services are available and if there are opportunit­ies to make services available through other means, like telemedici­ne.”

Miller said the best way the public can continue their support is by voting.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States