Refusal Provisions
In the News

A number of states have made or are considering significant cuts to family planning services. Some states have also barred family planning funds from going to clinics that are affiliated with providers that offer abortion services, such as Planned Parenthood. These restrictions limit access to important preventive health services such as contraception, cervical and breast cancer screenings, and STI testing and treatment, simply because the facilities also provide abortion care or referrals. States also prohibit facilities that receive state funds from hiring doctors who provide abortion care, even if not at that facility, causing them to lose medical staff.

Texas Lawmakers Broker Quiet Agreement on Women's Health Funds; House Panel Approves 20-Week Ban
Monday, May 6, 2013
Democrats and Republicans in the Texas Legislature are "quietly" working together to restore women's health funding, marking a sharp contrast from the "high-octane drama" over cuts to women's health services in recent years, the Texas Tribune/New York Times reports.

Hawaii Gov. Signs Bill To Ensure Emergency Contraception Access at Hospitals
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie (D) on Monday signed into law a bill (HB 411) that requires hospitals to provide sexual assault survivors with accurate information about emergency contraception, as well as access to it, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports.

Editorial Criticizes Mo. Bill That Could Hinder Emergency Contraception Access
Thursday, April 18, 2013
Although a federal judge recently "overturned an Obama administration rule preventing girls younger than 17 from buying emergency contraceptive pills over the counter, ... in Missouri, a bill [SB 126] already had passed the state Senate to prevent pharmacists from having to stock such medication," a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial states.

Mont. Senate Advances Bill To Reinstate Family Planning Funding
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
The Montana Senate this weekend advanced a budget bill that would restore $4.6 million in family planning funds, the Billings Gazette reports.

Mo. Attorney General Declines To Appeal Ruling on State Contraceptive Coverage Law
Monday, April 15, 2013
Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster (D) on Thursday said he will not appeal a federal ruling that struck down a state law (SB 749) allowing employers and health plans to refuse to cover contraceptives on moral, ethical or religious grounds, KCUR reports.

Expand to view all articles on Refusal Provisions.

IN THE COURTS

This section provides a brief overview of significant cases impacting reproductive rights and health related to Refusal Provisions.

Missouri Insurance Coalition v. Huff
Challenge to a Missouri law requiring insurers to offer plans to that do not include contraception.

Stormans. Inc. v. Mary Selecky and Judith Billings
Washington enacted a law in 2007 that required all pharmacies to carry and delivery prescription drugs, including emergency contraception.

Texas v. Sebellius
Challenge to the US Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Medicare and Medicaid's decision to end funding of Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program because Texas violated the law by refusing to allow any of the money to go to Planned Parenthood or other entities that are affiliated with abortion providers.

Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Quinn
Challenge brought in state court by anti-choice pharmacists to Illinois law that requires pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraception.

Planned Parenthood of Indiana Inc. v. Indiana State Department of Health
Challenge to an Indiana state law that aimed to defund family planning programs in Indiana on the basis that taxpayer money could be used to support abortion services.

Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri & Dodge City Family Planning Clinic v. Sam Brownback
Challenge to a Kansas law restricting Title X funding to women's health clinics that provide abortion care.

Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina v. Cansler
Challenge to a North Carolina law that prohibits the state's department of health and human services from providing state or state-administered funds to Planned Parenthood affiliates.

Planned Parenthood Arizona v. Betlach
Challenge brought in federal court to Arizona law that prohibits public family planning funds from going to abortion providers or entities affiliated with abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood Montana v. Montana
Challenge to Montana law prohibiting coverage of prescription contraceptives under Montana's CHIP program, a component of the Healthy Montana Kids program.

Planned Parenthood of Austin Family Planning v. Suehs
Challenge in federal court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Family Planning and Preventative Health Services Inc. v Texas Health & Human Services Co
Challenge in state court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program.

Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Janek
Challenge in federal court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program as violating plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

Balquinta v. Texas Department of State Health Services
Challenge in state court to Texas rule prohibiting Planned Parenthood affiliates and other entities affiliated with abortion providers from participating in Texas' Medicaid Women's Health Program as violating state law.

MORE INFORMATION

For more information, visit one of these helpful sites or resources:

AT-A-GLANCE

Issues

State by State

State by state

ABOUT REPRO WATCH

Repro Health Watch — an exciting new edition of the Women’s Health Policy Report — compiles and distributes media coverage of proposed and enacted state laws and ballot initiatives affecting women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care, as well as litigation in response to those provisions.



Sign Up!