Spring Break
Health Insurance Must Cover Prescription Birth Control
Laura Alix
Issue date: 3/19/07 Section: Commentary
Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled two to one that the Union Pacific Railroad Company did not discriminate against its female employees by excluding contraceptives from its health coverage plan. In fact, the company's health coverage did not cover any contraceptives at all.
In July 2005, a federal district court in Nebraska had ruled against the company. The plaintiffs were several female employees who used prescription birth control and were unable to have this medication covered by their health plan at work. Various female employees had sued on the grounds of sex discrimination, and their lawsuits were consolidated into a class-action suit. When the federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Union Pacific was ordered to cover all prescription contraceptives that were approved by the FDA under its health plan.
The majority opinion in last week's ruling indicated that "Contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy … Contraception is not a medical treatment that occurs when or if a woman becomes pregnant; instead contraception prevents pregnancy from even occurring." However, the dissenting Judge Kermit E. Bye wrote, "When one looks at the medical effect of Union Pacific's failure to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraception, the inequality of coverage is clear … This failure only medically affects females, as they bear all of the health consequences of unplanned pregnancies." Ultimately, although the Eighth Circuit ruled that Union Pacific could end its coverage of prescription birth control, the company chose not to. Union Pacific made the right decision there and ought to be commended for doing so.
This is the year 2007. Roe v. Wade, the infamous case that legalized abortion throughout the first trimester, is now 34 years old. Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases that legalized birth control usage for married and unmarried persons respectively, are even older. Although many individual women may catch flak for whichever decision they make, women are free to have children or to be childfree, to be stay-at-home moms or hard-working career mothers. Abortion, no doubt, stirs up dissent whenever it is mentioned, but today, it seems very strange that contraceptives, which are rarely controversial except among the very religious, could cause any conflict whatsoever.
In July 2005, a federal district court in Nebraska had ruled against the company. The plaintiffs were several female employees who used prescription birth control and were unable to have this medication covered by their health plan at work. Various female employees had sued on the grounds of sex discrimination, and their lawsuits were consolidated into a class-action suit. When the federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Union Pacific was ordered to cover all prescription contraceptives that were approved by the FDA under its health plan.
The majority opinion in last week's ruling indicated that "Contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy … Contraception is not a medical treatment that occurs when or if a woman becomes pregnant; instead contraception prevents pregnancy from even occurring." However, the dissenting Judge Kermit E. Bye wrote, "When one looks at the medical effect of Union Pacific's failure to provide insurance coverage for prescription contraception, the inequality of coverage is clear … This failure only medically affects females, as they bear all of the health consequences of unplanned pregnancies." Ultimately, although the Eighth Circuit ruled that Union Pacific could end its coverage of prescription birth control, the company chose not to. Union Pacific made the right decision there and ought to be commended for doing so.
This is the year 2007. Roe v. Wade, the infamous case that legalized abortion throughout the first trimester, is now 34 years old. Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird, the cases that legalized birth control usage for married and unmarried persons respectively, are even older. Although many individual women may catch flak for whichever decision they make, women are free to have children or to be childfree, to be stay-at-home moms or hard-working career mothers. Abortion, no doubt, stirs up dissent whenever it is mentioned, but today, it seems very strange that contraceptives, which are rarely controversial except among the very religious, could cause any conflict whatsoever.
Be the first to comment on this story