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 #19: why don't you read other legal reasoning on this if you [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 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. why don't you read other legal reasoning on this if you
Edited on Sat Mar-17-07 02:11 PM by spooky3
really do want to understand and perhaps even support a different line of reasoning and outcome? I posted some links above.

You may also be interested in the opinion of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding whether this policy would violate the Civil Rights Act and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda-decision-contrace...

For example:

"How is the PDA relevant to coverage of prescription contraceptives?

* Because the PDA prohibits discrimination against a woman based on her ability to become pregnant, it necessarily covers a health plan's exclusion of prescription contraceptives since they are a means by which a woman may control precisely that ability to become pregnant. The PDA does not require that all employers provide contraceptives to their employees through their health plans. It does require, however, that employers provide the same insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives that they do for other drugs, devices, or services that are used to prevent the occurrence of medical conditions other than pregnancy."

and

"Did the Commission consider arguments by the Respondents that their exclusion of prescription contraceptives is lawful?

* The Respondents advanced four reasons as to why their exclusion of prescription contraceptives did not violate the law. The Commission carefully considered these arguments but found them without merit
o First, the Respondents asserted that their insurance plan covered only abnormal physical or mental conditions and therefore they had no obligation to cover contraceptives. However, this argument does not hold up since the plan covers numerous preventive drugs and services, as discussed above. In addition, it covers surgical sterilizations and Viagra where patients complain about decreased sexual interest or energy.
o The Respondents also stated that the exclusion was permissible because it was based on cost considerations. However, Congress explicitly rejected a cost defense for pregnancy and sex discrimination; in any event, the Commission Decision cites studies that show that the cost of coverage of prescription contraceptives is, in fact, very low and is certainly less than the cost of childbirth.
o The Respondents argued that the exclusion of prescription contraceptives does not constitute sex discrimination. However, because prescription contraceptives are available only for women, the exclusion amounts, by definition, to sex discrimination.
o Finally, the Respondents argued that the charging parties' claims are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). However, while ERISA does preempt certain state laws that regulate insurance it explicitly exempts federal law from preemption. As a result, this argument is without merit."

There is much more there and at the other links I included in my prior post, that argues against your points.

It is not at all clear to me that this Appeals court decision would be upheld if the plaintiffs appeal it.

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