Google has told its employees in the United States that they will be allowed to move to another state without legalizing it following a Supreme Court decision to nullify Roe v. Wade which deprived you of the constitutional right to abortion.
But some companies that plan to help their employees travel through government channels to get suspended, may face the wrath of lawmakers who threaten to enact a ban on law or at least ban such subsidies.
Fiona Cicconi, the company’s Head of HR said the company’s benefit plan and health insurance would address ‘outpatient medical procedures where an employee lives and works.’
He also noted that employees could ‘send a request for relocation illegally, and those in charge of the process are aware of the situation.’
“These are big changes for a country that greatly affects many of us, especially women. Please remember what your colleagues can feel and, as always, treat each other with respect,” Cicconi wrote.
Google has told its employees in the United States that they will be allowed to move to another state without being legitimate after Roe v Wade is overthrown.
The majority of the company’s employees are located in California, where abortion rights are protected. Susan Wojcicki, CEO of Google-owned YouTube tweeted Friday
Google has 29 office locations across the country including Florida, Georgia, Texas and Wisconsin – four states where abortion is currently illegal or where laws banning or baning abortions may apply in the near future.
The majority of the company’s employees are located in California, where abortion rights are protected.
‘As CEO I realize there is a wide range of views on the SCOTUS decision today. As a woman, it is very backward. Personally I believe every woman should have a choice about how and when to be a mother. Reproductive rights are human rights, ‘Susan Wojcicki, CEO of YouTube-owned YouTube tweeted.
About half of all U.S. states are expected to reverse abortion rights.
Abortion restrictions that were already on the books in 13 states began to take effect as a result of Friday’s decision and at least a dozen Republican-led states are expected to ban abortions within the next 30 days.
Many companies have publicly promised to promote equality and the development of women in the workplace
The court’s decision, prompted by many of its conservatives, was based on a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. Meanwhile, some Democratic-led states are moving to strengthen access to abortion.
Many other media and technology companies including Meta, Amazon, Netflix, Apple, Disney, Comcast, Warner Bros. Discovery, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and Condé Nast have said they will pay for their staff if they are forced to travel outside their homes. at home access to reproductive health services.
Companies including health insurance Cigna, PayPal, Alaska Airlines and Dick’s Sporting Goods also announced a refund policy on Friday.
But many big businessmen including McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, General Motors, Tyson and Marriott did not make such ads.
Arkansas-based Walmart – the nation’s largest employer and the largest segment of its stores in the states that will immediately impose an abortion ban following a Supreme Court ruling on Friday – also remained silent.
However, such New policies could expose businesses to legal proceedings and even possible criminal liability, legal experts said.
Companies will have to focus on the small work of state law and are likely to provoke the anger of anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states if they adopt policies that support abortion workers.
Offering to pay for travel expenses can also make companies the target of lawmakers who oppose abortion.
Texas state legislators have already threatened Citigroup and Lyft, which had previously announced travel payment policy policies, and legal repercussions.
Texas State Representative Briscoe Cain, a Republican, sent a letter of termination and resignation to Citigroup, saying he would recommend a law banning places in the state from doing business with any company that offers travel privileges to employees seeking abortion.
A group of Republican lawmakers in a letter last month to Lyft chief executive Logan Green saying Texas’ will take immediate and effective action ‘if the riders’ company implements the policy.
The legislators also outlined a series of proposals related to abortion, including a bill that would prevent companies from doing business in Texas if they pay residents of the state to receive abortions elsewhere.
Texas lawmakers have threatened Citigroup and Lyft that they will enforce laws to prevent the company from helping their employees get fired from the government.
It is likely that it is only a matter of time before the company faces lawsuits from states or anti-abortion activists who claim that payments related to abortion violate the government’s ban on facilitating or supporting and preventing abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor. at the University of Illinois. and a health law expert.
“If you could sue me as a person for carrying your daughter in government lines, you could sue Amazon for a fee,” Wilson said.
For many large companies that fund their health plans, federal law governing employee benefits will provide essential insurance in litigation regarding their remuneration policies, several lawyers and other legal experts said.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits states from adopting requirements that are ‘related’ to employer-sponsored health programs. Courts have for decades interpreted the language to prevent state laws that mandate health programs can and cannot handle it.
ERISA manages benefit programs that are directly funded by employers, known as insurance plans. By 2021, 64% of American workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were covered by self-defense programs, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Any company that has been charged with felony criminal mischief for filing for bankruptcy may be referring to ERISA as a defense, according to Katy Johnson, attorney general for health policy at the U.S. Beneficiary, a business group. And that would be a powerful argument, he said, especially for businesses that have general payment policies for essential medical-related travel rather than abortions.
Johnson said the reintroduction of other forms of medical-related transportation, such as visits to designated hospitals ‘quality centers,’ is already a common occurrence although policies related to abortion are still rare.
“While this may seem new, it is not in the general sense and the law already tells us how to deal with it,” Johnson said.
The argument has its limits. Fully approved health plans, where employers purchase insurance through commercial insurance, cover about a third of employees and insurers and are regulated by state laws and not ERISA.
Many small and medium-sized businesses in the United States have fully insured programs and could not say that ERISA is preventing states from preventing abortions.
And, ERISA cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to support and prevent abortion, so employers who adopt payment policies are at risk of criminal prosecution from state and state prosecutors. who.
But since many abortion laws have not been enforced for decades, since Roe’s decision, it is unclear whether officials would try to sue companies, according to Danita Merlau, a Chicago attorney who advises companies on lucrative issues.