Union Pacific Case on Contraceptive Coverage Could Change the Rules Nationwide
| Mon Nov. 20, 2006 11:28 AM PST
Last week the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case against Union Pacific Railroad, which is being sued for failing to cover contraceptives in its health plans. In July 2005 a U.S. District court ruled in favor of the two women who filed the suit along with Planned Parenthood. The original ruling stating that Union Pacific, which employs about 49,000 workers nationwide, including 1,300 (that's 2.6% for those of you keeping track), illegally discriminates against female employees by not providing contraceptive coverage in its health plans.
The lower court went further, saying that Union Pacific's policy is in violation of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discrimination based on gender or pregnancy. The policy was deemed discriminatory because it covered many preventive health medications -- including drugs for erectile dysfunction -- but not contraception.
The company has argued that it did not need to provide contraceptive coverage "because fertility is 'normal,'" and, therefore, birth control is not "medically necessary." Ah, and Viagra is sooo necessary.
Judge Pasco Bowman, who sits on the appeals court panel said Thursday that if the ruling holds it could mandate all companies to cover birth control in their plans.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
Submitted by Online pharmacy (not verified) on Sun Mar. 11, 2007 8:21 AM PST.
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
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?
