Health |Emerging

Trump rolls back birth control coverage

Talk (4)

Lydia Morrish

Lydia Morrish

"This is a good point. We have not yet..."
TW

Tom Wolsky

"This story is listing under Emerging...."
Lydia Morrish

Lydia Morrish

"Hi Elizabeth. Thanks for the comment ..."
EM

Elizabeth Middleton

"I was interested to see the amendment..."

President Donald J. Trump announced a rollback on the federal rules requiring employers to provide birth control coverage to employees.

The new rules will expand employer powers to stop covering birth control contraceptive services “based on its sincerely held religious beliefs” or “moral convictions.” According to the New York Times, this will cause hundreds of thousands of women to lose their contraceptive benefits.  It remains to be seen, however, how many employers will choose to avoid paying the modest costs for birth control versus paying the average of about $11,000 for an uncomplicated birth plus maternal leave costs.

The Trump administration has cited a list of health risks associated with some birth control methods as a reason for the amendments, and claimed the Obama-era mandate could promote “risky sexual behavior.”

It also said the new rules, which will take effect immediately, seek “to better balance the interests” of women with those of employers.

These amendments will mark an end to regulations under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) that required almost all employer health insurance plans to offer no-cost birth control to employees.

A study commissioned by the Obama administration found that more than 55 million women have access to birth control under the mandate.

Catholic church-affiliated organizations have been some of the most vocal opponents to the contraceptive care rule.

Houses of worship and nonprofits with religious affiliations previously received exemptions that allowed them to “opt out” of contraceptive coverage and instead have third-party insurers foot the bill, reported the Washington Post. 

Organizations said covering birth control costs was equivalent to being forced to be complicit in a sin by the government, the Post reported.

Women’s reproductive rights was a contentious topic throughout Trump’s presidential campaign. The president even formed the “Pro-Life Coalition” during his campaign promising to chip away at federal abortion funding.

On October 3, the House of Representatives passed a nationwide ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy unless in cases of incest, rape, or where the life of the mother is at risk. However, opponents argue 20-week abortion bans are unconstitutional.


Sources & References


Started by

United Kingdom
Lydia is a staff journalist at WikiTribune, where she writes about politics, women's rights, inequality, sexual politics and more. Previously she headed up the women’s rights and political content at Konbini for over two years. In 2016, she made ‘Building Big’, a documentary about bigorexia and male body image. Her work has also been published in Dazed & Confused, Refinery29, Vice, Lyra, Banshee and Buffalo Zine. She is based in London.

History for stories "Trump rolls back birth control coverage"

Select two items to compare revisions

25 April 2018

08 February 2018

04 February 2018

20 January 2018

02 November 2017

17:26:56, 02 Nov 2017 . .‎ Lydia Morrish (Updated → Headline)
17:20:14, 02 Nov 2017 . .‎ Peter Bale (Updated → Accepting community edits cumulatively)
17:03:19, 02 Nov 2017 . .‎ Tamsen ALVIN TX (Updated → Many employers will choose to pay for birth control, not birth & maternal leave)
16:43:26, 02 Nov 2017 . .‎ Tamsen ALVIN TX (Updated → cost of birth control v birth)

Talk for Story "Trump rolls back birth control coverage"

Talk about this Story

  1. Rewrite

    This story is listing under Emerging. It’s from October 6.

    1. This is a good point. We have not yet decided the duration of emerging and developing stories and if we need to be going back and “closing” them so to speak.

  2. Flagged as bias

    I was interested to see the amendment from “opponents” to “advocates” which would imply that all advocates are against the 20 week rule. Surely some advocates are in favour of it (e.g. the Catholic Church) so why not stick with the original, and accurate, description?

    1. Rewrite

      Hi Elizabeth. Thanks for the comment and I agree with your thoughts –opponents is definitely more accurate. Have changed back.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive news, alerts and updates

Support Us

Why this is important and why you should care about facts, journalism and democracy

WikiTribune Open menu Close Search Like Previous page Next page Back Next Open menu Close menu Play video RSS Feed Share on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Follow us on Youtube Connect with us on Linkedin Email us Message us on Facebook Messenger Save for Later