Back when the pill first came out many people discouraged it and even the government wanted nothing to do with it. In 1959, when the pill started to get popular, President Dwight Eisenhower stated in a press conference …show more content…
Merriam Webster defines women’s rights as, “legal, political, and social rights for women that are equal to those of men” (Merriam Webster 1). Men do not have to worry about going through these types of worries in healthcare and having to gain these rights. Women have gone through gaining their rights in the US for several years. Improving their lives and fighting for their rights is what many women do. Women have gone through gaining the important rights such as voting and becoming equals in the world. When providing for women, the government has taken care for their health because women have basic needs and shouldn’t have to pay for them. President Obama has realized that and therefore made all birth control for women free. Due to this, “A 2015 Health Affairs study showed that out-of-pocket spending on the pill has decreased by nearly 50%, saving women an estimated $1.4 billion per year on birth control medication, since ObamaCare’s requirement to provide free contraception took effect” (ObamaCare 2). This plan has affected women for the positive, which includes supporting their rights and saving them money. ObamaCare makes all insurance plans and companies provide free birth control unless it is a certain kind or the plan goes against the company owners religion. By doing this the government is supporting women and their rights, but to the women under the certain companies they do not obtain these …show more content…
The ObamaCare website classifies the exempt as, “Some “religious employers”, houses of worship, health sharing ministries, a few employers who got religious exemptions, non-profit hospitals, some institutions of higher education, etc don’t have to provide contraceptive services, including counseling” (ObamaCare 2). Just like women's rights, religious rights are protected by the constitution. The first amendment clearly states that there must be freedom of speech. The government cannot take away this right for another right. The government had dealt with the issue firsthand when the famous Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell Supreme court case came out. In the New York Times article that covered the case,
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the court, declared that family-owned corporations like Hobby Lobby cannot be forced to pay for insurance coverage for contraception for employees over their religious objections. The ruling means that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to corporations, that the contraception requirement placed a substantial burden on companies like Hobby Lobby, and that the government has not chosen the least restrictive means to further a compelling governmental interest — the most demanding test in constitutional law. (Schwartz