Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel

Mara Gandal-Powers is Counsel for Health and Reproductive Rights at the National Women's Law Center. She previously was a legal fellow and an intern at the Center. During law school, Ms. Gandal-Powers was a law clerk for Senator Al Franken on the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law. Additionally, she interned for the Children's Health Advocacy Project, a medical-legal partnership between Legal Services of Eastern Missouri and health centers and children's hospitals in St. Louis. She received her undergraduate degree from Bowdoin College where she majored in Women's Studies. She received her law degree from Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, where she served as co-president of Law Students for Reproductive Justice and was an associate editor of the Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Prior to attending law school, Ms. Gandal-Powers worked for the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs. She currently serves on the Alumnae Board of The Holton-Arms School. 

  • Printer-friendly version
  • Send by email

My Take

Help Me Affordable Care Act, You’re My Only Hope!

Posted by Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel | Posted on: April 02, 2013 at 09:52 am

A study published in the journal Women’s Health Issues last week highlighted a problem many women have confronted over the years when getting their birth control: even when you have insurance, the costs for contraception can be unaffordable. The study showed that, in 2010, on average women with private insurance paid $10 for a one-month supply of generic pills, $112 for an IUD, and $116 for an implant. The study also found that costs varied depending on your insurer, with some women having to pay more than $17 a month for generic pills, $305 for an IUD, or $308 for an implant. On top of these high costs, the study found that between 2007 and 2010, insurance companies shifted to women costs for long-acting contraceptives, like IUDs and implants. In 2007, a woman paid 13.8% of the cost of an IUD, whereas in 2010 she paid 17.5%.

If these price tags have you confused, there is hope. As I’ve mentioned on this blog before, the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as “Obamacare,” contains a provision that requires health insurers to provide coverage of the full-range of FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.

Read more...
Tags: Affordable Care Act (ACA), Birth Control, Health Insurance, Health Insurance, Health Care Reform, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | Add new comment

Why I’m Gushing About the ACA’s Contraceptive Coverage Requirement as the U.S. Teen Birth Rate Hits a Record Low

Posted by Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel | Posted on: February 11, 2013 at 04:50 pm

The CDC published new data today showing that the teen birth rate in the U.S. dropped to a historic low in 2011. The CDC attributes this in part to teens using contraception more regularly and more effectively. This is great news for a number of obvious reasons. But what it makes me really excited about is how the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive coverage provision could help reduce these rates even more in the coming years.

Yes, I recognize how wonky my excitement is, but think about it: these new statistics are from a period of time before the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirement went into effect. Imagine what might be coming down the road for us as more and more women have access to contraceptive coverage without worrying that they won’t be able to afford the co-pay at the pharmacy.

Read more...
Tags: Affordable Care Act (ACA), Birth Control, Health Care Reform, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | Add new comment

An Important Addition to the EC=BC Equation: - Cost Sharing

Posted by Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel | Posted on: March 28, 2012 at 09:57 am

Access to contraception without cost sharing is one of the many important gains for women in the Affordable Care Act. And it has become much more well-known in the last couple of months because of the kerfuffle on Capitol Hill and on talk radio. But here’s one of the in-the-weeds, wonky things about this provision of the law that has people in the reproductive rights community like me excited: the provision applies to emergency contraception.

Read more...
Tags: Affordable Care Act (ACA), Birth Control, Emergency Contraception, Emergency Contraception (Plan B), Reproductive Health & Rights, Barriers to Reproductive Care, Family Planning, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | 1 comment

Silencing Women Didn’t End with Sandra Fluke

Posted by Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel | Posted on: March 23, 2012 at 09:24 am

The House of Representatives is currently considering a bill, H.R. 5, which would reform medical malpractice laws. Several Congresswomen drafted an amendment to this bill which would have limited the bill’s malpractice protections if the malpractice claim is based on a violation of the health care reform law related to the women’s preventive health services. The Congresswomen went through the usual steps that an amendment must go through before it can be proposed. They worked with the Office of Legislative Counsel in drafting it. It was reviewed by the Congressional Budget Office who said its provisions would have no cost. The House Parliamentarian declared that it was germane, meaning that it was related to the underlying bill so that it could be proposed. The next step before the amendment could be debated on the floor was to have the Rules Committee allow the amendment. And then the Rules Committee attempted to silence these women, just as Rep. Issa tried to silence Sandra Fluke.

Read more...
Tags: Health Care, Health Insurance, House of Representatives, Preventive Health Care & Services, Reproductive Health & Rights, Barriers to Reproductive Care, Health Care Reform, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | Add new comment

Blunt Amendment “Restores” Something – Just Not What Its Supporters Say It Does

Posted by Mara Gandal-Powers, Counsel | Posted on: February 29, 2012 at 03:21 pm

One of the claims that supporters of the Blunt Amendment have been making is that it would “restore conscience rights” that existed before the health care reform law. Let’s apply some of what I learned in law school about legislative language and take a look at the dictionary definition meaning of “restore.” “Restore” means “to give something back” or “to return something to previous condition.” So then, the supporters’ argument is that the Blunt Amendment gives back “conscience rights” that existed before the health care law, or it returns “conscience rights” to their previous condition before the health care law. The problem is, however, that the actual language in the Blunt Amendment creates a refusal right that would allow a health plan or employer to refuse to provide insurance coverage for any item or service required by the health care reform law. Before the health care reform law, no such refusal right existed.

Under current law, individuals and entities who wish to refuse a role in abortion services are protected by three different federal laws, the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 300a-7), the Coats Amendment (42 U.S.C. § 238n), and the Weldon Amendment, which is attached to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill each year. The health care reform law explicitly said it would not have any effect on these laws, meaning these were the law of the land before the health care reform law and continue to be the law now. So, the Blunt Amendment doesn’t “restore” these rights because they never went away. What could the Blunt Amendment be about, then?

Read more...
Tags: 112 Congress, Reproductive Health & Rights, Barriers to Reproductive Care, Health Care Reform, Health Care & Reproductive Rights | Add new comment