After President Donald Trump’s administration initiated new rules that allow broad exemptions to the Obama-era birth control mandate, controversy arose in Central New York and around the world as the debate was split between those who say it infringes on employees’ healthcare rights and those who say it is a victory for employers’ religious freedom.

James Lee, a professor of philosophy at Onondaga Community College, Cazenovia College and Syracuse University, said one of the main points of the mandate debate stems from an employer’s responsibility for healthcare coverage.

“If we agree healthcare is a right, and [America is] not in a universal healthcare system, it falls on employers [to provide coverage],” Lee said. “It comes down to what you think an employer’s obligations are.”

The new regulations allow new exemptions for nonprofit and for-profit employers with an objection to contraceptives based on religious beliefs, employers with moral objections and college-based student health centers, which expands the Obama-era exemptions that originally only allowed houses of worship to claim exemption.

Opponents of the new rules argue that all employers, no matter their beliefs, should have to cover the full range of healthcare costs under their insurance plans. Nikki Lee Carroll, executive director of the Onondaga County Democratic Committee, said it is about making sure everyone receives the necessary healthcare they need, including birth control.

“I believe that it’s an organization’s responsibility…if you’re providing health insurance, you shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate in any sort of way,” Carroll said.

Supporters of the exemptions, however, rebut that it should not be up to the government to impose requirements on companies if the companies have strong objections. Central Region Public Relations Director Tyler Toomey, president and chairman of the College Republicans at Oswego State, said the main reason conservatives support these new measures is because they loosen government regulation of private businesses.

“Personally, I think birth control and women’s health…is very important,” Toomey said. “When it comes to the government forcing employers to pay for it, that’s where I’m not a supporter. It’s more about forcing them to do something. It’s not about what they’re being forced to do.”

Toomey said that the government does not have to mandate companies because most will cover birth control and not seek an exemption due to the long-term economic benefits.

“[Trump] made it easier for organizations to say no, that they don’t want to pay for it, but I think a lot of companies will still provide it to women,” Toomey said. “Your major companies will still provide it.”

Mercer, the benefits consultancy subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Co., said that, in 2010, before the ACA was signed into law, nearly 9 in 10 employers covered contraceptives no matter company size.

Another point of debate within the larger argument surrounds religious freedom, something both sides are concerned about. Even though the new exemptions accommodate both strong moral objections and religious ones, Lee explained the two are often linked.

“You have to give reasons for those morals,” Lee said. “Moral beliefs [typically] grow out of that soil of religious beliefs.”

The protection of those religious beliefs is one of the main points Carroll said is important to her in this debate.

“The country was founded on religious freedom, and also I think that includes freedom from religion,” Carroll said. “So, as a woman, and as an atheist, I don’t feel that someone’s personal religious views should be [imposed] upon me, especially on me and my reproductive healthcare.”

Proponents of the administration’s efforts argue that employees have options that will allow employers with religious beliefs to not have to cover birth control.

“I think it’s their choice, that if they want to follow those beliefs, then their employees should respect that, and if that’s something you believe in, you may want to consider employment elsewhere,” Toomey said.

Those against Trump’s new legislation often cite the fact that birth control is often used for medical uses other than as a contraceptive.

“Birth control is first and foremost a medicine,” Carroll said. “I think a lot of people subscribe to the misunderstanding that birth control is exclusively sexual and for reproductive purposes, and it’s not. It’s for medical purposes as well.”

Birth control pills can treat severe periods, acne, pain from premenstrual syndrome and other symptoms related to a hormonal imbalance.

With both employers’ and employees’ rights hanging in the balance, different sides project alternate healthcare trends. Lee predicted the effect will largely depend on location.

“Rural areas, this might be a bigger thing,” Lee said. “It becomes a big deal because you have a lot of people that still believe in [a] traditional mindset.”

Toomey said he does not know what more Americans will see done until a new healthcare policy is written and passed.

“I think there shouldn’t be too much more done until a solid healthcare plan comes out from the Trump administration,” Toomey said. “That’ll push this in whatever direction it chooses to go.”

Carroll said she sees negative effects in the short term but a bounce back in the long term.

“I do believe we’ll see less coverage, but I do believe it will be reversed, that the American public’s response to Trump has been positive for Democrats,” Carroll said.

Lee said that overall, the discord is better for the American people in the future.

“There’s always this question if you’re living in a pluralistic society, you’ll come across a lot of differences,” Lee said. “The overall benefit of living in a diverse society outweighs the cost, but the cost is still there.”

Photo: by Bryancalabro via Wikimedia Commons