Skip to contentNational Women's Law Center

Hillary Schneller, Fellow

Hillary Schneller is an Equal Justice Works Fellow, sponsored by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, for Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women's Law Center. She focuses on using the Affordable Care Act's nondiscrimination provision, Section 1557, to address sex discrimination in health care. Hillary is a graduate of Barnard College and Columbia Law School. During law school, she was the Pro Bono and Academic Chair of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and the Business and Administrative Editor of the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Hillary also participated in Columbia's Sexuality and Gender Law Clinic and interned at ACLU Women's Rights Project and the immigration clinic at The Door, an organization that provides services and support to youth in New York City. During her summers, she was an intern for the Law Center and Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania.

My Take

Health Barriers and Breakthroughs for LGBT People and Individuals Living With HIV/AIDS

Posted by Hillary Schneller, Fellow | Posted on: August 07, 2013 at 10:53 am

Last week, HHS released its third annual report outlining its accomplishments over the past year and its objectives for the coming year for improving the health of LGBT individuals, families, and communities. LGBT women in particular have reason to celebrate these accomplishments, but all women benefit from initiatives that seek to end discrimination and improve health outcomes and health care access.

For example, HHS regulations and guidance requiring equal visitation rights at hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities that receive Medicare or Medicaid helps not only LGBT families but also anyone who has a family joined by bonds of affection and affinity rather than legal coupled status. Likewise, the ACA’s nondiscrimination protection (section 1557) provides important protections against discrimination for women and LGBT people alike.  HHS’s focuses in the upcoming year—implementing the ACA and the June 2013 Supreme Court decision striking down a part of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)—have important gains for women, LGBT people, and individuals living with HIV/AIDS.

Read more...

Third Circuit Court of Appeals Says Conestoga Wood Specialties Must Comply with Contraceptive Coverage Benefit

Posted by Hillary Schneller, Fellow | Posted on: July 26, 2013 at 04:07 pm

Conestoga Wood Specialties is one of the almost 30 plus companies challenging the contraceptive coverage benefit. Conestoga has been arguing that, as a secular, for-profit corporation, it can exercise religious beliefs and that it should be allowed to impose those religious beliefs and the beliefs of its owners on its employees. Today, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals said, quite simply, “no way!”  

The court’s decision makes three important points: (1) Conestoga, as a for-profit, secular corporation, cannot exercise religious beliefs; (2) the Hahns, Conestoga’s owners, cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees through their company; and (3) the decision does not disrespect the Hahns’ religious objections to contraception.

Read more...

Michigan Court: Mersino Management Bosses Do Not Get to Decide if Employees Get Access to Birth Control Coverage

Posted by Hillary Schneller, Fellow | Posted on: July 15, 2013 at 03:56 pm

Last Thursday, July 11, a district court in Michigan refused to temporarily stop enforcement of the contraceptive coverage benefit against another for-profit corporation. The company challenging the contraceptive coverage benefit is Mersino Management. Mersino Management sells water bypass systems for profit. Indeed, it states that “complete water management is our specialty.” The bosses at Mersino Management also think that they have a special right to decide whether their employees get access to birth control. Specifically, Mersino Management has been arguing in court that for-profit companies can exercise religious beliefs and that bosses’ should be able to impose those religious beliefs on their employees to determine whether employees are able to have birth control coverage.  

Read more...

"Too Late" and the "Turnaways": Women Denied Access to Abortion

Posted by Hillary Schneller, Fellow | Posted on: June 14, 2013 at 12:30 pm

What happens to the women denied access to abortion? What does it mean to be "too late" to get an abortion? What contributes to a woman ending up at the clinic "too late"? 

The New York Times Magazine article What Happens to Women Who Are Denied Abortions? delves into these and other questions. The article describes a study by a University of California at San Francisco researcher that looks into what happens to women who are turned away from clinics that perform abortions (the "turnaways"), often because they arrive at the clinic "too late" or because they cannot afford the procedure. The study aims to fill a missing piece of current research: what is the impact of not being able to have an abortion on a woman's physical and mental health and her financial situation? 

Read more...

Wait, There Wasn’t a Law Against That Already? Section 1557: a Title IX for Health Care

Posted by Hillary Schneller, Fellow | Posted on: June 04, 2013 at 04:53 pm

Strong federal protections against sex discrimination exist in the workplace and in schools, and have existed, for sixty and forty years, respectively. Of course, there’s a lot of work to do to enforce those protections and build on them. In health care, no such broad antidiscrimination law existed.

You may need to re-read that. People generally do a double-take when they hear there has been no big prohibition against sex discrimination in health care until just 3 years ago. “Did I really read that right??” You did.

We needed a Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education program, for health care. Finally, now, we got one!

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) adds this important protection against sex discrimination in health care. But, that’s not all.

For one, Section 1557 expands existing protections against discrimination in the health care area based on race, color, national origin, disability, and age. Specifically, the law protects individuals from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, gender identity, and sex stereotypes in:

  • the health programs or activities of recipients of federal financial assistance, like all operations of a hospital or the health plans of entities that receive federal grants;
  • federally-administered programs, such as Medicare or the Federal Employee Health Benefit Plan; or
  • any entity established under Title I of the ACA, including the health insurance exchanges being established in the states—the places people will go to compare their options for and purchase health insurance

Or, put more simply: the law’s reach is broad and impacts virtually all aspects of health care.

Read more...