Mother Jones - Comments for "Union Pacific Case on Contraceptive Coverage Could Change the Rules Nationwide"

Railroads have a history of being backward institutions. Not covering contraceptives comes from 2 centuries ago. Not covering Contraceptives is gender discrimination. How can anybody defend this discrimination? I believe that Social Security covers the recreation drug Viagra. A man 65 should not create children, there is no medical need for Viagra at this age, yet Social Security covers it. Is this the Pizarro world?

You need to understand, that the male penis and the male brain may be attached to the same body, but they do not communicate in any conventional sense. WBR LeoP

Contraceptives do not treat a medical problem. An even bigger issue is that they are basically "on demand" drugs. Any woman that asks for them can get a prescription from her doctor. No medical condition need exist. The cost of this would be prohibitive. If I were a company forced to cover contraceptives, I would raise the monthly co-pay by the amount of one month's dosage. Then they can say that they cover them, but in reality, the employees just pay for them whether they use them or not.

Vasectomies and tubal ligation aren't covered either, but that isn't an issue because these women can't claim that it's sexist.

Over-the-counter drugs are also not covered. When you get a cold and the doctor tells you to take Tylenol and Robitussin, it's not covered by insurance. Likewise, with contraceptives, if you don't want to get pregnant there are over-the-counter products that work: condoms, sponges, and foams. If you choose to take the pill, it is a choice, not a medical necessity.

Okay, I can hear it now, "But condoms aren't the same as 'the pill'" You're right. Getting lasik surgery is better than glasses, but that's not covered either. It's not discrimination against ugly people.

The good news is that this issue has been broached before and lost in court.

Adam, We're both right. It's not wrong to say that companies will be mandated to cover contraceptives if the ruling stands, that's precisely what will happen. Whether or not that will in turn compel companies to cut coverage altogether, remains to be seen. I agree that it's a likely consequence. And a whole other story.

This whole issue of denying women contraceptives is maddening. Especially when those who deny are male dominated companies like: Walmart, K-Mart, Union Pacific, etc...

They claim to be carrying out some sanctimonial fundamentalism as if they have the direct line to a higher source. Shheeesh! Did they all pass the line in the great book(s) that gives all FREE WILL, without exception.

Adam may be right or may be wrong?? Either way, the insurance laws should be comparable between genders. I agree: No contraceptives, No Viagra! Hey, maybe we'd need fewer contraceptives if we had less Viagra in cirulation?? Just a thought.

I think you are reading this wrong. If the Court finds that not covering contraceptives is discriminatory, companies will almost certainly opt to cover less than cover more. They won't be forced to cover contraception, so they will cut from their health plans to comply rather than add to them.