Want to Offer Abortion-Related Benefits to Employees? What Small Business Owners Need to Know After Roe v. Wade Reversal
The following provides a brief overview of the various issues that employers will need to consider in deciding whether to make changes to their benefit programs in light of the Supreme Court's ruling.
August 01, 2022 at 07:00 AM
7 minute read
With the Supreme Court's recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, employers are left with more questions than answers as to their options to provide certain benefits related to abortions and the potential risks.
The following provides a brief overview of the various issues that employers will need to consider in deciding whether to make changes to their benefit programs in light of the Supreme Court's ruling:
- State Law. Each state now has the ability to set its own restrictions with respect to abortion without considering any constitutional privacy limitations. In essence, this allows states to implement laws that significantly curtail the availability of abortion services. For employers that operate in multiple states and offer coverage for abortion services, it will be imperative that employers understand the applicable state laws addressing both the restrictions on abortion services and the effect of those laws on the coverage provided under the employer's health plans, including the potential for any criminal or civil enforcement.
- Health Plan Coverage. The effect of state laws on employer-provided health plan coverage will depend, at least in part, on whether the plan is fully insured (claims are paid by the insurance carrier) or self-insured (claims are paid from the general assets of the company).
- Fully insured plans will be subject to the insurance laws of the state in which the policies are issued. In this regard, if coverage for abortion services is mandated, the insurance plan products will be required to provide the coverage. If the state insurance laws prohibit/restrict the coverage for abortion services, the insured carriers will not be able to offer the coverage under policies issued in those states.
- Self-insured plans are not subject to state insurance laws, but are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA generally preempts state laws that effect the employee benefit plans. However, depending on how the state laws are drafted, ERISA preemption may be tested.
- Travel Benefits. Many employers have gone on record to say that they will be providing travel benefits to employees and dependents for medical treatment that is not available in the state in which the employee or dependents reside. There are different ways that employers can approach this type of benefit:
- Self-funded employee health plans can add this benefit to the existing plans. Travel benefits, within certain parameters, are considered medical expenses and can be provided through the self-funded plan.
- Fully insured health plans are limited by the policies and state insurance laws and may not be able to provide this benefit. However, it may be possible that a separate self-insured health reimbursement plan can be established to provide the travel benefits to those who otherwise have major medical coverage.
- Employers could also set up a reimbursement or stipend program outside of their health plans. However, this approach could raise additional considerations as it relates to privacy and the substantiation of expenses. Reimbursements under these programs would likely be taxable to an employee as wages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Wrestles With Disabled Ex-Firefighter's Discrimination Case
Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250