The “new” debate over insurance coverage for contraceptives may remind some feminists of moving back in time. Although it is well known that abortion is still very controversial, one may have thought that contraception would be more readily accepted century. However, it is still a hot button issue that many want to debate and in the 21st contest. This is particularly surprising because a large majority of sexually active, child bearing aged women use contraceptive as part of their standard health care.

The debate over contraception has been dormant for many years, but was reawakened with the introduction of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. This time the debate has made it to the Supreme Court. The question is whether for-profit businesses with religious beliefs against contraceptives are exempt from the Affordable Care Act mandate to provide insurance coverage including contraceptive drugs. The debate over women’s sexual freedom has a long history, but this particular argument for the right to access contraception is a younger fight.

It started in 1998 with a New York University School of Law professor, Sylvia Law. She wrote an article titled, Sex Discrimination and Insurance for Contraception for the Washington Law Review. Law points out that because insurance didn’t cover contraception there was a large gap in equality between out of pocket medical expenses for men and women. Additionally, unintended pregnancies unfairly have a large impact on the medical, social, and economic well being on women. The article concluded with pointing out that the failure of employers to cover contraception under health plans means they are violating Title VII with illegal sex discrimination.

After Law’s article, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) agreed with her and ruled against two employers because of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (part of Title VII) in 2000. Between 1998 and 2009, twenty-six states adopted laws that required insurance coverage for contraceptives, just like other prescription drugs. However, as all of this was taking place, the argument never involved employers and their religious beliefs.

American Health Care has long been decentralized. With the introduction of ACA, the government has more control over regulating our health care and therefore, religiously affiliated employers are starting to sound the whistle because they don’t want to offer fair health coverage to both sexes based on personal beliefs. The ensuing debate involves the whole gamut of cultural issues, reproductive rights, religious beliefs, gender equality, the role of government, and corporate personhood. The conversation has begun.