Editor’s Note: On November 7, 2017, University of Notre Dame employees received an email saying that contraceptive coverage will continue for health care plan members at no cost, because the third-party administrator will continue to provide the coverage free of charge.

---

On October 6, 2017, the Trump administration issued two new rules that make it easier for employers to refuse to include free contraceptive services in the health insurance plans they offer based on “sincerely held religious beliefs” or “moral convictions.” Last week, The University of Notre Dame became one of the first employers to take advantage of the rule with its decision to drop birth control coverage for its students, faculty, and staff.

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), most health insurance plans must include coverage of a full range of contraceptive methods without cost-sharing as part of the essential health benefits requirement. This provision helped make free contraceptives available to millions of women. To support this requirement, the Obama administration cited the government’s “compelling interest” in gender equality and protecting women’s health. The current administration disagrees that covering birth control within the health plans of objecting employers is necessary to achieving that goal.

The conversations surrounding the rule change tap into a wider debate about privileging religious and moral freedom over other interests in policy. In a recent Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Viewpoint, Ronit Stahl and LDI Senior Fellow Holly Fernandez Lynch describe how policymakers are often tasked with competing duties to protect religious and moral freedom (conscience) while serving other needs of people with different beliefs (access).

Consequently, access to care and the well-being of patients are left to the discretion of each political administration.

In their paper, Stahl and Lynch argue that the Trump administration’s approach to governing, as illustrated by the new contraceptive rules, rejects balance and unilaterally favors religious interests over patients’ practical needs. The legal advantage to religious interests is also evident in that the administration has not implemented alternative methods for affected employees to maintain access to free contraceptives when their employers refuse to cover it. The authors argue that by allowing religious or moral objections to override the provision of essential health care services, the current administration lowers the priority of health care access in public policy. Consequently, access to care and the well-being of patients are left to the discretion of each political administration. In fact, the authors contend that the current administration disproportionately favors conscience to the point that it overrides scientific data. The new rules fail to account for well-regarded studies demonstrating the benefits of access to contraceptives, such as their role in reducing unintended pregnancies. Ultimately, Stahl and Lynch assert that health care is equally, if not more, central to people’s lives as religion, and legal protections should reflect that. As such, they emphasize the importance of using evidence and compromise in formulating policies that balance conscience and access.