A lot of people are saying that the HHS ruling is not a big deal because 28 states are already doing this. Then I saw someone say that actually, that number is closer to 8 because a bunch of those 28 states have the religious exemption that the HHS is denying here. So I decided to do a little legwork and look it up. It looks to me like the latter argument is closer to correct. Here is the breakdown:
States that appear to require contraception coverage for religious institutions (10):
Colorado
Georgia
Illinois
Iowa
New Hampshire
Ohio
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
States that require contraception coverage but do have an exemption process (19):
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut*
Delaware
Hawaii
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oregon
Rhode Island
Texas**
West Virginia***
States that have no contraception requirement at all(21):
Alabama
Alaska
Florida
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
Wyoming
(Note: I am assuming that if no exemption is mentioned in the description, that none exists. It could be the case that there is something.)
* – Connecticut was moved from the first category to the second.
** – Contraceptive coverage is necessary to preserve the life or health of the insured individual is required.
*** – Religious organizations that require an exemption must make alternate arrangements so that their employees can have group-rate coverage, but they are not required to extend this coverage themselves.
Fess up, you really did this for use in a future trivia question, right?
I looked up CT — from what I can tell based on this text, it should be in the second category:
(because although it’s a pretty liberal state, there’s a whole mess o’ Catholics here, so I was surprised to see it in the non-exemption list.)
Thanks for the catch. I’ll move it.
My only question is whether “religious employer” includes hospitals owned by religious organizations or just the current HHS rule which is just ya’ know, actual churches.
In some of the cases. In some of the laws from what I’ve read it’s very clear (for example, Missouri). In others, it’s far more nebulous what religious employer means.
Jesse,
Agreed. The information is interesting, but that little detail is necessary to really begin to know what it all means.
As far as I know, none of the states make the distinction that the HHS does. The straightforward interpretation of the wording, religious employer, is “employer that is a religious organization.”
If there is a distinction based on what capacity you work for, I think that would need to be delineated.
Are you familiar with any states that make this distinction? It’s not something I have heard before. If you are aware of one, and they do use the generic term “religious employer”, then I think that would call what is (to me) the most straightforward interpretation into question.
Okay, I found one. California does define religious entity rather clearly and narrowly. That does throw into question how narrowly or broadly “religious employers” are defined in other states.
Apparently, I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had simply read the link that Ryan provided. Here is what it says:
8 states provide no religious exemptions at all.
4 states provide narrow exemptions, like the HHS
7 states cover schools, universities, charities, associations, and just about everything short of hospitals
8 states exempt all of the above and hospitals
I’m not sure why there are only 27 states above, but 28 states that have a contraception requirement.
Note that if the religious employer is self-insured, ERISA probably preempts the state contraceptive coverage mandate.
I should expand and clarify that:
If an employer is self-insured, ERISA preempts state benefit mandates.
But not the HHS mandate?
If so, that suggests that the number of states that have a real HHS-mandate is likely less than ten.