Zurich Insurance to Halt Coverage of New Fossil-Fuel Exposures

Zurich Insurance becomes second firm to quit climate alliance

One Too Many

In July 2026, Massachusetts passed H.5595, which “[a]mends [Chapter 112] governing abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy by striking out language which currently restricts late-stage abortions to cases where the life or health of the mother is at risk…” (H.5595 Summary). 1792 Exchange’s Corporate Bias Ratings database shows 55 companies headquartered in Massachusetts actively support abortive practices. These companies support this by advocating for abortion, offering abortion travel benefits, or offering reproductive health coverage.   Nixon Peabody focuses its legal practices on supporting reproductive health. The law firm states it “[provides] comprehensive support for all aspects of reproductive rights and fertility law.” Ahold Delhaize provides travel benefits to employees outside Massachusetts: Quote, it “offers abortion travel coverage” in its healthcare plan. Boston Scientific stated its “current U.S. health care benefits offer employees… a broad range of reproductive [benefits].”   Who’s to say these companies do not also reimburse the procedure itself?   Too many Massachusetts businesses are participating in this new amendment through overly broad reproductive “healthcare” coverage. These businesses not only support but provide means to practice this amendment. 1792 Exchange understands business neutrality affects Americans within and without the womb, and providing abortive “healthcare” isn’t big business; it’s a big price. 

The EEOC’s mission is opportunity for all, not demographic bean-counting 

In the Superman comics, Bizarro World is a place where everything is exactly backward. It is a cube-shaped planet where ugliness is admired, failure is celebrated, lies are preferred to truth, and the normal rules of logic are turned upside down. What is obviously true on Earth becomes false, and what is plainly false is treated as a self-evident fact.   Donna Brazile recently accused the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission of abandoning its purpose by proposing to end mandatory annual race-and-sex workforce reporting. Her argument reads like a dispatch from Bizarro World.  In truth, the commission’s July 21 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to rescind the EEO-1 and related demographic reports is a long-overdue course correction that reorients the agency to the actual text and original intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Title VII forbids discrimination against any individual based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. It does not authorize the government to compel every covered employer, regardless of whether a single discrimination charge has been filed, to annually sort its workforce into racial and sex categories and submit the tallies to Washington. That regime, in place for decades, imposed nearly $275 million in annual compliance costs on employers and roughly …

What Your Company’s Pride Sponsorship Supports

Many Americans are asking why corporations continue to fund LGBTQ Pride events that include programming or vendors that most can agree are seen as inappropriate for children. At certain events, attendees may encounter nightclubs, alcohol brands, cannabis dispensaries, or drag performances that often contain sexually suggestive elements. Many families would not ordinarily choose to expose their children to these types of environments, leading some to question why such programming is viewed differently when presented under the banner of LGBTQ+ Pride or “inclusion.” Before sponsoring socially contentious events, companies should carefully consider how they want their brands to be perceived by consumers, shareholders, employees, and the broader public. While stakeholders may hold differing opinions on many social issues, protecting the well-being of children remains a widely shared concern. Corporate sponsorships communicate a company’s values and priorities, making it important to evaluate whether those partnerships support its long-term business objectives and appeal to a broad customer base rather than a narrow segment of the market. NYC Pride is sponsored by Target, which publicly committed in 2025 to stop sponsoring nonbusiness causes. The event includes Youth Pride, a program specifically designed for LGBTQIA+ youth, their families, and allies, with the stated goal of  “empower[ing] …

Companies Reviewing GLP-1 Coverage Should Also Review Transgender Healthcare Coverage 

According to reports earlier this month, Starbucks is ending GLP-1 coverage for its employees. Under its new healthcare plan, Starbucks will no longer cover prescription drugs used for weight loss, but it will continue to cover comprehensive transgender healthcare interventions, including reconstructive surgical procedures and puberty blockers, for covered dependents. Employers are pulling back on GLP-1 coverage largely for the same reason they are reconsidering other benefits: to adjust to rising healthcare costs. RxBenefits reports that GLP-1 drugs cost roughly $1,000–$1,500 per month, while SHRM estimates employers often shoulder 70–100% of prescription drug costs.  With GLP-1s now accounting for around 20% of prescription drug spending and the number of users accelerating, employers face a limited set of choices: tighten eligibility requirements, shift more of the cost to employees or customers, or eliminate coverage altogether.  If companies can reasonably reconsider GLP-1 coverage because of cost, uncertain return on investment, and broader questions over what an employer-sponsored health plan should cover, why should other expensive medical benefits, such as transgender medical interventions, be exempt from similar scrutiny?  According to February 2026 data from the Human Rights Campaign, more than 550 major companies, including Starbucks, offer comprehensive transgender healthcare benefits to employees and covered dependents. While …

Gender Surgery for Minors Faces a Legal Reckoning

Last year, a federal court in Washington State ruled that Premera Blue Cross unlawfully discriminated when it refused to cover elective double mastectomies for two young girls. The decision read like a harsh warning to every employer: exclude gender-transition procedures for children from your health plan and risk an Affordable Care Act discrimination claim. But the story doesn’t end there. In July 2026, the United States filed a brief urging the Ninth Circuit to reject that court’s misguided reasoning. In a 39-page brief supporting Premera’s appeal, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division argues that declining to fund these elective sex-denying surgeries for minors is not sex discrimination. “Far from being discrimination on the basis of sex,” the brief states, “this sensible policy is rooted in biological reality, developmental psychology, and medical diagnosis.” The brief anchors its argument in the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, arguing that “regulating medical procedures on the basis of diagnosis does not automatically amount to discrimination on the basis of sex.” Premera covers a mastectomy for a teenage boy with gynecomastia and for a girl with breast cancer but declines to cover the same surgery when it is performed on healthy adolescents—boys and girls alike. The distinction, the brief argues, is …