U.S. District Court Judge Nathaniel Gorton ruled against Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey Monday in a lawsuit she filed against the federal government over contraceptive mandates.
Healey filed the suit to block the Trump administration’s policy to expand religious exceptions, which could allow employers to opt out of providing contraceptives to employees if they cite moral oppositions. Following the ruling, Healey shared her disappointment at the result.
“While we are disappointed in today’s decision, we remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring affordable and reliable reproductive health care for women,” Healey said in her official statement. “Access to contraceptive coverage is a critical issue for the health, equality, and economic well-being of women and their families and we will continue to fight for these protections.”
Gorton dismissed the lawsuit, stating that Massachusetts had no grounds to sue because they could not prove that these laws would cause significant damage to Massachusetts citizens. This is likely due to the ACCESS bill, a law signed by Gov. Charlie Baker on Nov. 20, which guarantees co-pay free contraceptives for all fully insured health plans in Massachusetts, regardless of federal laws.
Gena Frank, the NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts legislative and political director, said her organization supported Healey’s lawsuit because they believe access to contraceptives has a huge impact on the freedom of women and the opportunities for children.
“We think to choose when and whether to become a parent is fundamental to being able to continue education, continue work and to provide for the children you already have,” Frank told The Daily Free Press. “Women should have the right to decide when to have children because that plays a central role in their economic freedom and their ability to control their economic futures.”
Frank Mazyck, 39, of Dorchester, who does research on sexually transmitted infections for a living, stressed the importance of the other uses of contraceptives.
“Here’s my problem when it comes to contraceptives: Everyone worries about birth control, but there is another side of this, and that is STIs and HIV infections,” Mazyck said. “What sense would it make to block people from having access to contraceptives, if that is going to prevent someone from getting HIV?”
Frank also noted a deficit in the ACCESS bill and provided reasons why Healey and NARAL will continue to combat the federal laws.
“Massachusetts is not able to do what the federal law does and regulate self-insured health plans, which is about 50 percent of the market,” Frank said. “So, we need the … bill to ensure coverage for half the market and to establish new industry norms, but we also need to keep challenging the Trump administration’s rule because we can’t, through state law, cover the other 50 percent of the law.”
Frank also addressed the opposing side of this argument, which is that those with moral oppositions should not be required to provide contraceptives to employees if it goes against their religious beliefs. This was affirmed by the 2014 United States Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, she said.
“The other thing that is important is that there was already a religious exemption established under the Affordable Care Act,” Frank said. “This rule just dramatically widens that, to not just be religious institutions, but anyone who claims a moral objection.”
Samantha McIsaac, 23, of Kenmore, said she thinks religious exceptions should not be made.
“I don’t think that there should be a moral or a religious exception because women’s rights are human rights,” McIsaac said. “My contraceptive helps me with more things than a contraceptive — it helps me with [my] skin … I don’t think there should be an exception to it.”
