News Article: “Supreme Court upholds Trump administration regulation letting employers opt out of birth control coverage“

BBC News Original article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/supreme-court-birth-control-obamacare.html

Written by Alvin Tam 11 July 2020

SUMMARY OF NEWS ARTICLE

The latest Supreme Court ruling has stated that employers or universities in the US can deny women birth control coverage based on a religious or moral objection.

Previously, thanks to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare) in 2010, women in the US have been provided with birth control pills that are funded by their employers. In other words, guaranteed pre-paid birth control.

Now, with the latest Supreme Court ruling, between 75,000 and 125,000 women might lose their coverage.

History behind this ruling

Since the ACA was first signed in the Obama administration, this ‘contraception mandate’ has been battled in the courthouse for this entire decade. 

In 2014, a Supreme Court case between Hobby Lobby Inc. and the US Health Department ruled that requiring corporations to provide birth control coverage is a violation of religious freedom. 

While in 2017, shortly after Trump took office, the Health Department (HRSA) handed down the broad rule that religious employers can be exempt from the requirement of providing birth control pills. In response to this, the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey sued the Trump administration, claiming that the HRSA did not have the legal authority to issue such an order.

What can you learn from this

Even though you might only be applying to medical schools in the UK or Hong Kong, it’s always worth learning about the latest in healthcare from other parts of the world as well. This isn’t simply for a general broadening of horizons. 

As medical issues often contain ethical dilemmas, thinking about them can help us in our medical school interviews.

  • For example, when interviewers ask questions like whether the NHS should fund certain treatments or perhaps on how the funding of different treatments should be prioritised.

  • A hot topic would be regarding the funding of homeopathic treatments. 

To answer these questions, it’s important to recognise that a good answer includes arguments for both sides of the argument. We therefore need to consider and weigh the good and bad of each issue. We can utilize principles like the four pillars of medical ethics to structure our thinking.

On the topic of whether birth control should be funded by employers, there are interesting opposing arguments to consider from a medical perspective. 

  • The pill is a method of contraception; if used properly, it allows people to pursue their lifestyles freely which can be argued as an important benefit for their wellbeing. For women that have severe pain during menstruation or suffer from PMS/PMDD, and use the pill to ease symptoms, the funding of birth control is even more important. 

  • However, the fact that the US does not have universal healthcare adds complication to the topic, as it might not be fair for employers to take up the responsibility of funding, when there are cheaper methods of contraception like condoms. Religious groups that started this court case argue that it is unjust that religious employers are required to go against their beliefs to provide birth control for their employees, as having the pill readily available might encourage casual sex.

Some probing questions to consider

Stemming from this topic, here are some other questions you might want to think about:

  • Should NHS doctors with strong religious beliefs against contraception deny patients prescription of birth control pills? Putting yourself into the shoes of these doctors, what should you do?

  • What is the process behind determining what treatments and services are funded by the NHS? What factors should the planning authorities have to consider?