The implementation of the Affordable Care Act has hidden benefits that reach far beyond what was initially predicted — it exposes issues of discrimination against same-sex couples.

The Obama administration recently announced several changes in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. According to a March 14 BusinessWeek article, insurers under Obamacare must provide same-sex married couples the same family policies as heterosexual couples. This resolves a major injustice for same-sex couples and creates greater access to health insurance.

This partially resulted from a lawsuit in Ohio regarding the denial of health coverage for a married gay couple, according to the article. The issue was resolved through an announcement by the Department of Health and Human Services that family policies must not discriminate against same-sex couples, regardless of whether the marriage is recognized by the state government.

This policy reflects the immense progress made by the Obama administration for LBGT equality. However, it raises important questions about whether the rights of the insurers or the rights of the insured should take precedent.

This issue is not completely unfamiliar. It is similar to the current U.S. Supreme Court case, Sibelius v. Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby, a nationwide chain of arts and crafts stores, requested an exemption to the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that for-profit corporations provide contraceptive coverage to their employees, according to the writ of certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 19. They have requested this exemption based on religious principles that result in their opposition to contraception. The Supreme Court will hear this case on March 25.

The Affordable Care Act clearly has widespread effects, causing many questions about whether individual coverage takes priority over the religious preferences of larger companies. Both individual and religious rights are protected under the Constitution. It is becoming clear that in certain circumstances, it is necessary to clarify whether corporations have the same religious rights as an individual.

Due to the far reach of the legislation, many individuals and businesses are affected by this daunting question.

When forced to choose either corporate rights or individual rights, individual rights should always take precedence. It is not within the power of an insurance company or a corporation to dictate whether a person has access to coverage based on the corporation’s personal preferences.

The argument presented by those who are reluctant to adopt this policy is primarily based on religious freedoms. However, a corporation or insurance company’s religious freedoms do not usurp the religious freedom of the individuals in need of coverage.

It is long past time that Tea Party conservatives and the religious right accept people have the notion of personal freedom to choose sexual preferences. Everyone is entitled to his or her preferences and no corporation has the right to discriminate against individuals by not allowing access to proper health care.

This issue is pivotal for LGBT rights and religious freedom for individuals. Health care access should in no way be jeopardized by discrimination.

The Obama administration is taking a clear stance in support of same-sex couples and individual rights.  It is essential that the administration maintain that discrimination under the ACA will not be tolerated.

The core goal of the ACA is to increase accessibility to quality health care. This accessibility should not be exclusively based on sexual preferences.

Rachel Potter is a junior political science and sociology major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected]. 

Published on March 19, 2014 at 12:37 am