“Insuring” Conscience for Contraceptive Coverage

Posted on October 5th, 2011 by Vina Tran
 1 comment  

Sepperphoto Elizabeth Sepper is the 2010-2012 Center for Reproductive Rights fellow at Columbia Law School.  Her research focuses on health, medical ethics, and human rights.  Her current paper Whose Conscience Counts?, critiques the conventional account of morality in medicine, which limits conscience to doctors and nurses who refuse to deliver controversial treatments, such as end-of-life care, abortion, and sterilization.  Cross posted from HealthLaw Prof blog:

Human beings have consciences, but do businesses?  Does a hospital or insurance company act on conscience? The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops says they do—and that businesses should not have to pay for, and insurance companies should not have to cover, employee health insurance that includes procedures to which they object.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services received the last of public comments on preventive health services that must be covered, without co-pay, by insurance companies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  As expected, the bishops—along with other public commentators—focused on the requirement of contraception coverage in employer-sponsored plans.  Under the proposed rule, only a non-profit, religious employer that has the purpose of inculcating religious values and primarily employs and serves people who share its religious tenets will be exempted.  Religiously affiliated healthcare facilities, like hospitals and nursing homes, by contrast, will have to purchase insurance that cover these services for their employees (if they provide insurance coverage).

The bishops contend that those insurers and employers “with moral or religious objection to contraceptives or sterilization . . . will experience burdens to conscience under this new mandate.”  Yet, at the same time, they argue the rule should protect conscience for all individuals.

Corporate or institutional “conscience,” however, is inherently in tension with the exercise of individual conscience, as I argue in a draft paper on conscientious refusal in medicine.  Religiously affiliated healthcare facilities bring together physicians and nurses of all creeds, and treat patients of all beliefs.  Responding to an employer’s moral objection means impeding women from exercising their own moral judgments about family planning, sex, and health—as some public comments pointed out.

This conflict between institution and individual can be seen in the bishops’ arguments in favor of a wider religious employer exemption.  If employees shared the institutional position, there would be no need for an employer exemption, because no employee would use insurance to purchase contraception.  But employees in Catholic healthcare (or other social services) facilities do not in fact share their employers’ convictions.  They may in good conscience use contraception, as indeed 99 percent of women (and 98 percent of Catholic women) do during their lifetimes.

Given this tension, bald assertions of a need for conscience protection often obscure the real questions.  Is individual conscience actually protected?  Or are institutional interests preeminent?  Are these values absolute or should they be balanced against interests in public health, equality, and patient autonomy?  As the trend of corporate conscience continues (most recently with the so-called Respect for Rights of Conscience Act, H.R. 1179), we should seriously weigh these questions – and consider can an insurance company have a conscience?

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Center for Reproductive Rights.

One comment

  1. New blog post from Elizabeth Sepper, Ctr for Repro Rts-CLS fellow on “Insuring” Conscience for Contraceptive Coverage http://t.co/ZiP3VMwE

Add a comment

Comments are subject to moderation and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Columbia Law School or Columbia University.



"Homeland" Security Abortion Rights Activism Adoption adultery Advocacy Affordable Care Act Alien Tort Claims Act Amicus Brief Asylum Bankruptcy BDS Bullying Census Politics Children Citizenship Civil Unions Clinic Columbia Law School Compulsory Marriage Condoms Contraception Contraception Mandate Cordoba House Criminal Law Cures for Homosexuality Defense of Marriage Act Disability Rights Discrimination Divorce Domestic Partnership Domestic Violence Domestic Workers Don't Ask Don't Tell Earth Day Economic Justice Education Egypt Elections Employment Discrimination ENDA Estate Planning Events Family Law Fellowships femininity Feminism Free Speech Gender and Technology Gender Identity Discrimination Gendering the Economy Gender Justice GSL Online Haiti Hate Crimes Health Care Hilary Clinton Hillary Clinton Hiring HIV HIV Discrimination Hobby Lobby Homelessness Homophobia Housing Human Rights Identity Politics Illegitimacy (sic) Immigration Reform In-ing Incest India International Law Intersectional Feminism Islamophobia Israel Jobs Justice Sotomayor King & Spalding Labor Trafficking Land Reform Law School Legal Profession Legal Scholarship Lesbian & Gay Parenting LGBT Parenting Marital Status Discrimination Marriage Marriage Equality Masculinity Medicaid Michelle Obama Migration Military National Security Obama Administration Obama Appointments Obergefell Outing OWS Palestine Parenting Pinkwashing Policing Politics of the Veil Polyamory Popular Culture Pornograpy Pregnancy Presidential Politics Prisons Privacy Products Liability Profanity Prop 8 Prosecutorial Discretion Publications Public Rights/Private Conscience Public Rights/Private Conscience Project Queer Theory Queer vs. Gay Rights Race and Racism Racial Stereotyping Rape Religion Religious Accommodation Religious Exemption Religious Exemptions Religious Freedom Restoration Act Religious Fundamentalism Reproductive Rights Reproductive Technology RFRA Romania Rwanda Sartorial Commentary Schools Sex Discrimination Sex Education Sex Stereotyping Sexting Sex Trafficking Sexual Assault Sexual Duplicity Sexual Harassment Sexual Health Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic Sexual Orientation Discrimination Sex Work Silencing of voices SMUG Sodomy Law Reform Solidarity Sports Supreme Court Surrogacy Technology Title IX Trafficking Transgender Uganda Uncategorized Violence Women and Poverty Women of Color Work Zimbabwe

Academic Calendar  |  Resources for Employers  |  Campus Map & Directory  |  Columbia University  |  Jobs at Columbia  |  Contact Us

© Copyright 2009, Columbia Law School. For questions or comments, please contact the webmaster.