Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Will Trump let Obamacare 'implode'?
Donald Trump's government has issued a ruling that allows employers to opt out of providing free birth control to millions of Americans.
The rule allows employers and insurers to decline to provide birth control if doing so violates their "religious beliefs" or "moral convictions".
Fifty-five million women benefited from the Obama-era rule, which made companies provide free birth control.
Before taking office, Mr Trump had pledged to eliminate that requirement.
The mandate requiring birth control coverage had been a key feature of so-called Obamacare - President Obama's efforts to overhaul the US healthcare system.
But the requirement included a provision that permitted religious institutions to forgo birth control coverage for their employees.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on Friday it was important to expand which organisations can opt out and deny free contraceptive coverage.
"We should have space for organisations to live out their religious ideas and not face discrimination because of their religious ideas," said one HHS official, who did not wish to be named.
Skip Twitter post by @SenatorHassan In January, tens of millions of women marched, making their voices heard. They will not stand for anti-women policies like this. 9/ — Sen. Maggie Hassan (@SenatorHassan) October 6, 2017 Report
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the top Republican in Congress, praised the decision as "a landmark day for religious liberty".
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National National Women's Law Center have announced that they will sue the federal government over the decision.
In announcing the rule change, HHS officials cited a study claiming that access to contraception encourages "risky sexual behaviour".
The department disputes reports that millions of women may lose their birth control coverage if they are unable to pay for it themselves.
Roger Severino, the director of the HHS Office of Civil Rights, argued that only a small percentage of employers will choose to opt out, and therefore only a limited number of women will be affected.
But many health policy analysts say employers that do not wish to pay for their employees' contraceptive coverage will now be able to.
Will you be affected by this decision? Email [email protected].
Diedra Penner, 33, from Bellingham, Washington state, told the BBC she feared losing access to the birth control she uses to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome. At the moment, the treatment is paid for with partial subsidies through the Affordable Care Act.
"Without the birth control mandate I don't know how much the treatment would cost," she said.
"This is definitely an attack on women - if this issue affected men it wouldn't be happening this way."
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Protesters outside the Supreme Court in March when lawsuits were filed against the Obama-era rule
By Nada Tawfik, BBC News, New York
The immediate outcry from the president's detractors has been that this is an attack on women.
Birth control is used for a variety of reasons. Preventing unwanted pregnancy is, of course, one of them. But it can also be used to treat medical conditions such as endometriosis or polycystic ovarian syndrome.
The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists was blunt. They said the decision undermined the best interests of their patients and turned back the clock on women's health.
Another women's advocacy organisation, UltraViolet, said employers and insurers now needed to pick a side, asking if they stood "with Donald Trump and his attacks on women," or "the women who depend on your coverage?"
The administration says only a limited number of women will be affected.
Whether or not that is true, the president is being criticized for politicising women's bodies and health to score political points with his base.
Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Nuns and other religious figures protested against the Obamacare mandate
Is there a political price to pay?
By Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
The contraceptive coverage mandate had become a hotly contested legal battleground since Obamacare passed in 2009 - with the Democratic administration aggressively pushing back against attempts to carve out sweeping religious exemptions to the women's health provisions of the law.
With Donald Trump now in charge, the dynamic has been turned on its head. Now the White House will be much more lenient in granting waivers, and Obamacare's defenders are the ones turning to the courts for a remedy.
The move will be celebrated by religious groups and conservatives - a tangible benefit of their presidential victory last year.
There's a risk of blowback outside the Republican Party's evangelical base, however.
According to some estimates, the contraceptive mandate saved women $1.4bn in its first year in effect. The decision could deal a direct financial blow to women across the US - something they might remember when they head to the polls in 2018.
Will you be affected by this decision? We'd like to hear from you. Please email [email protected]
You can also contact us in the following ways:
ShelleyCrosthwait on October 6th, 2017 at 22:49 UTC »
I know someone has probably said all this already but here goes. First, It's called birth control for a reason. Even people that are married like to plan when they have kids or "control birth". Birth control is not just for promiscuous women. It's literally so you can plan when you have kids. What if you get married and would like to wait a few years before starting a family? What if you are married, just had a baby and want to wait until the child is older to have another? What if you are married and just don't want to have kids? Second, birth control is not just used for "controlling birth". It's also used for women who are trying to get pregnant to help with IVF, it stops women with PCOS from bleeding for weeks at a time, and helps regulate periods. I know that the debate is over whether or not employers should offer birth control as free with their insurance plans, but I think that everyone gets so wrapped up in women being "slutty", etc that they loose sight of the fact that birth control is very useful for people other than fast women. This is not directed at anyone so 'you' is used in the general sense, but let me just put this right here: who are you to judge if a woman is slutty or not? You do you and let them do them. You are not God, you have no right to judge anyone on their choices. The choices you make are yours and should not be forced on anyone else and just because you think your choices are better than someone else's does not make it so. I know at least one person here will call me a liberal pansy or some such nonsense but the fact is no one has the right to make choices for other people.
zstansbe on October 6th, 2017 at 18:20 UTC »
As a fiscal conservative, this is disappointing. Free contraceptives is one of the biggest money saving ventures the government can get into.
cmonsmokesletsgo on October 6th, 2017 at 18:05 UTC »
Subsidized birth control just makes financial sense. Hormonal birth control is pretty inexpensive, but babies born to women who don't want them are usually born into poverty and strain the welfare system. It blows my mind that fiscally conservative people oppose subsidization of birth control. Control over birth = fewer unwanted babies = a healthier, wealthier, more productive society.