Right to Contraception Act

Proponents argue this bill protects a fundamental constitutional right repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court (Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird, Carey v. Population Services International) and prevents state legislatures from banning contraceptives by exploiting ambiguous language in abortion bans. They cite Justice Thomas's 2022 concurrence in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization suggesting the Court should reconsider Griswold, and argue federal action is necessary to preempt potential state bans. Critics (primarily Republicans) contend this bill usurps state authority over public health and medical practice, infringes religious liberty protections, and inappropriately elevates contraceptive access above other federal and state interests. They argue the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should shield providers and employers with moral objections. The non-partisan evidence shows: (1) no current federal or state bans on FDA-approved contraceptives exist; (2) 12 states have religious refusal clauses for providers, reducing access in some regions; (3) some state abortion bans use language that could be interpreted to restrict emergency contraception (CMS guidance and state legal analysis confirm ambiguity in laws like Texas HB 1280); (4) contraceptive access is established public health policy under Medicaid (Title XIX) and the ACA's preventive services mandate (Section 2713, 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13); (5) the bill explicitly excludes insurance coverage requirements, meaning it does not mandate new insurance benefits.