You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #5: several good arguments here [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
spooky3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-17-07 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. several good arguments here
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 01:08 PM by spooky3
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20010103.html

snip

"An analogy is necessary because benefit plans do not literally deny women coverage for the same exact prescription that they cover for men. In other words, if a male employee were to somehow to get a prescription for female birth-control pills, then the benefit plan would refuse to cover the cost of that prescription, just as it would for a female employee. The policy is formally gender- blind: Anyone who wants birth control pills is denied coverage.

Nonetheless, this formal gender blindness only thinly veils an obvious gender difference as to who, in practice, receives coverage. And just as a plan covering treatments for testicular cancer but not ovarian cancer would represent sex discrimination, the failure to cover birth-control for women may also represent sex discrimination if an analogous prescription for men is covered. But what "male" prescription should be considered analogous?" (more at the link)


***

Another point is that it is probably a stupid managerial decision from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. The cost of unwanted pregnancies and women's health complications resulting from some of them (i.e., reactive measures) are likely much greater than the cost of covering birth control (i.e., preventive measures). It only takes a few hospitalizations to offset the "savings" from hundreds of women's birth control. And if this differential coverage policy is symbolic of other policies and the culture in the org., it probably has a negative effective on the recruitment of highly qualified women (and I hope, men). See this link for some data:

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/birth_control/76456
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC