Contraception Mandate in ACA - Essay Example

Contraception Man in ACA Contraception Man in ACA The Contraception Man Act in the USA was proposed to provide health contraceptive coverage for all workers in the government (Sonfield, 2013). The policy was developed using the Multiple Stream Theory. This theory incorporates the entire society when developing a theory (Sabatier and Christopher, 1996). The policies aimed at making all employees provide contraception policy coverage to all their employees apart from the religious organizations; thus, all the religious groups who oppose the coverage were not to be included in the policy (Sonfield, 2013).

Democratic politicians favor the contraception mandate than the republican politicians. This is very challenging because some people feel that paying for contraception coverage is an attack to their religious freedom (Sonfield, 2013).b) Questions on the policy What does the contraception mandate case involve?Within the government who were some of the participants who influenced the policy?Do the nonprofit organizations owned by the religious groups use the policy? How does the contraception mandate apply to business in the United States?c) Alternative political institutions or processes might have been used in developing the contraception mandate act in the USAInstitutional Model which incorporates political leaders who develop a model to apply government policy to all citizens would be useful (Sabatier and Christopher, 1996).

The Process Model can be used as an alternative because it follows a procedure when formulation policies (Sabatier and Christopher, 1996). It entails identification of a problem, setting of agenda, developing of a policy proposal, collection and passing of the policy, implementation and evaluation (Sabatier and Christopher, 1996). ReferencesSabatier, P., A. & Christopher, M. (1996). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Sonfield, A. (2013). Implementing the Federal Contraceptive Coverage Guarantee: Progress and Prospects.

Guttmacher Policy Review 16 (4): 112-113.