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

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.

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."


"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
  -A Setback For Women....Viagra Yes, Birth Control, NO! babsbunny  Mar-17-07 11:24 AM   #0 
  - This is so wrong! K&R  mentalsolstice   Mar-17-07 11:45 AM   #1 
  - Actually, there are other uses for Viagra  Alcibiades   Mar-17-07 01:26 PM   #11 
  - There are also other uses for birth control pills, including use for patients  phylny   Mar-17-07 02:08 PM   #20 
  - Quite ironic given ...  BearSquirrel2   Mar-17-07 01:58 PM   #17 
  - Kick to the Greatest page!  Lisa0825   Mar-17-07 11:48 AM   #2 
  - Not meaning to stir up trouble here, but I disagree (I think).  indie_ana_500   Mar-17-07 11:56 AM   #3 
  - Could this be handled in the union contract?  Solo_in_MD   Mar-17-07 12:05 PM   #4 
  - several good arguments here  spooky3   Mar-17-07 12:05 PM   #5 
  - What 'medical' condition is going to result  China_cat   Mar-17-07 12:33 PM   #6 
  - It's not about the "result" - It's about the "illness"  jberryhill   Mar-17-07 01:07 PM   #9 
     - But what if a pregnancy...  mentalsolstice   Mar-17-07 01:33 PM   #12 
     - Like I said..  jberryhill   Mar-17-07 01:47 PM   #14 
        - why don't you read other legal reasoning on this if you  spooky3   Mar-17-07 02:05 PM   #19 
           - "argues against your points"  jberryhill   Mar-17-07 03:01 PM   #23 
              - No one is jumping down your throat.  spooky3   Mar-17-07 03:43 PM   #27 
     - You would think, though, that an employer  China_cat   Mar-17-07 01:55 PM   #15 
     - Yup  jberryhill   Mar-17-07 03:02 PM   #24 
     - There probably isn't going to be a big upswing  Arkansas Granny   Mar-20-07 02:44 PM   #41 
     - the plan also covers Rogaine. Is hair loss a "disorder"?  spooky3   Mar-17-07 02:24 PM   #22 
        - Please find someone who disagrees with you and argue with then.  jberryhill   Mar-17-07 03:03 PM   #25 
  - Most likely.  igil   Mar-17-07 12:39 PM   #7 
  - Unfortunately my BCPs were not covered  mentalsolstice   Mar-17-07 01:58 PM   #16 
  - Not true. Birth Control pills are prescribed for conditions that involve excessive bleeding  SharonAnn   Mar-17-07 01:18 PM   #10 
  - The coverage of birth control pills is nothing compared to the coverage  phylny   Mar-17-07 02:10 PM   #21 
  - Bullshit  alarimer   Mar-17-07 03:36 PM   #26 
  - try telling that to a woman with endometriosis  ComerPerro   Mar-17-07 06:39 PM   #29 
  - been there, done that  kineneb   Mar-20-07 12:41 PM   #36 
  - 1 pregnancy is more expensive than years of birth control. add in time off to give birth, etc.  Shallah   Mar-18-07 01:20 AM   #32 
  - I use them to aid a medical ailment  recoveringrepublican   Mar-18-07 01:20 PM   #34 
  - You see the logic?  quantessd   Mar-20-07 12:29 PM   #35 
  - Hormone therapy fights  MsMagnificent   Mar-20-07 02:38 PM   #40 
  - This is the result of years of "pro-life" activism in both parties.  madfloridian   Mar-17-07 01:00 PM   #8 
  - And if God says  mentalsolstice   Mar-17-07 01:37 PM   #13 
     - Yes but ...  BearSquirrel2   Mar-17-07 02:02 PM   #18 
  - This is why the class action rules were changed.  greyhound1966   Mar-17-07 06:26 PM   #28 
  - Women should be the only  femrap   Mar-17-07 06:49 PM   #30 
  - This got me to thinking. I can't wait to get into an argument with a someone who  NDP   Mar-17-07 06:58 PM   #31 
  - appalling  HuffleClaw   Mar-18-07 04:08 AM   #33 
  - so it doesn't cover condoms but does it cover prescription birth control  orleans   Mar-20-07 01:18 PM   #37 
  - You're misreading.  ieoeja   Mar-20-07 02:29 PM   #39 
  - I really don't understand this as a business decision.  Clark2008   Mar-20-07 01:26 PM   #38 
  - It makes sense  Bronyraurus   Mar-20-07 02:48 PM   #42 

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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