News Release

Why Should a Woman’s Health Care Depend on Her Employer?

The New York Times reports: “The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that requiring family-owned corporations to pay for insurance coverage for contraception under the Affordable Care Act violated a federal law protecting religious freedom. It was, a dissent said, ‘a decision of startling breadth.’”

Spokespersons for Physicians for a National Health Program said today that “allowing an employer to deny coverage of family planning services for employees, strictly on the basis of the employer’s own religion, is yet another illustration our highly dysfunctional system of health care financing — a system that is being perpetuated by the Affordable Care Act. Their common message: If we had a single-payer national health program, the employer would not be involved and this problem would never have arisen.”

The following are all reachable via Mark Almberg, communications director for PNHP: mark at pnhp.org, @pnhp

LINDA PRINE, M.D.
Prine is medical director of the Reproductive Health Access Project, of which she is a co-founder. She is a board member of Physicians for a National Health Program-NY Metro chapter and a current board member of the New York State Academy of Family Physicians. She said today: “The Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case reminds us why a single payer system with universal rules for coverage is much better than employer-based insurance. Why should the religion of one’s boss determine what birth control products a woman has to choose from? It should be none of their business — birth control is a basic preventive service that would naturally be covered under a single payer plan.”

ELIZABETH ROSENTHAL, M.D.
Rosenthal is is a dermatologist and assistant clinical professor at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. She is an executive board member of the NY Metro chapter of Physicians for a National Health Program. She said today: “If we had a single-payer health care system instead of our current employer-based health insurance, this question would be moot. Women would not be at the mercy of their employer to get access to family planning services and contraceptive care.”