They Cover Viagra
Those of you who picked up an IDS today might have come across this interesting discrimination story: They Cover Viagra
Jackie Fitzgerald, and several other Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPPC) employees, decided to file a lawsuit against UPPC for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This lawsuit was brought on by the fact that UPPC's insurance policy does not cover birth control pills, and as a result of not being able to afford them on her own, Jackie ended up with an unplanned pregnancy.
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Thursday that the Union Pacific Railroad Company’s insurance policy did not discriminate against women in its refusal to cover the costs of birth control for its female employees. The court, in its 2-1 decision (which, of course, was handed down by a panel of all white, all male judges), justified its ruling by saying that “contraception is not ‘related to’ pregnancy ... because ... (it) is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy.”
The most interesting point in this story is that the insurance policy does cover male specific medicines such as Viagra. Is it just me or does this insurance policy seem this a little sexist? I think that if UPPC doesn't want to cover birth control pills, or other forms of female contraception, then they should not cover products that would premit a male to have a healthy sex life. Wouldn't this seem to be the cause of an unplanned pregnancy anyway? Pregnancy doesn't happen alone.
I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about the Court's ruling that the insurance policy doesn't discriminate against women. Does anyone think that the Court made the correct ruling in this issue?
Jackie Fitzgerald, and several other Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPPC) employees, decided to file a lawsuit against UPPC for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. This lawsuit was brought on by the fact that UPPC's insurance policy does not cover birth control pills, and as a result of not being able to afford them on her own, Jackie ended up with an unplanned pregnancy.
"The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Thursday that the Union Pacific Railroad Company’s insurance policy did not discriminate against women in its refusal to cover the costs of birth control for its female employees. The court, in its 2-1 decision (which, of course, was handed down by a panel of all white, all male judges), justified its ruling by saying that “contraception is not ‘related to’ pregnancy ... because ... (it) is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy.”
The most interesting point in this story is that the insurance policy does cover male specific medicines such as Viagra. Is it just me or does this insurance policy seem this a little sexist? I think that if UPPC doesn't want to cover birth control pills, or other forms of female contraception, then they should not cover products that would premit a male to have a healthy sex life. Wouldn't this seem to be the cause of an unplanned pregnancy anyway? Pregnancy doesn't happen alone.
I'm interested to hear what everyone thinks about the Court's ruling that the insurance policy doesn't discriminate against women. Does anyone think that the Court made the correct ruling in this issue?
posted by Heather at
5:32 PM
1 Comments:
I was absolutely amazed when I read this article. I know that a lot of companies choose not to cover birth control on their insurance plans, under the opinion that it is an "elective" prescription (i.e. women choose to take it). That would be fine if they treated everyone with that policy. However, I think it's completely discriminatory that they will cover men's lifestyle drugs like viagra. Why should they support men's sex lives when they clearly don't support women's? I think it's a complete double standard.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home