They cover Viagra

Put gas in the car or buy birth control? That is the choice that one woman, Jackie Fitzgerald, faced in 2001 because her insurance did not cover her contraceptives prescription. Deciding because of necessity to go with the fuel, she subsequently found herself with an unplanned pregnancy.\nThis woman, along with several others, decided to sue their employer, Union Pacific Railroad Company, for discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The courts initially acted in the women’s favor, but alas, the judicial system has found its way to deal yet another blow to women’s rights in its most recent ruling.\nThe 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.”\nContraception is not related to pregnancy? Excuse me? Apparently these judges forgot to take human sexuality 101. Contraception is all about pregnancy – the desire to avoid it. It’s called birth control for a reason. Contraception is one of the most basic health needs of any sexually active woman, and insures should be required to include it in all coverage packages. Would they really rather pay for the costs of childbirth and at least 18 years of health care than $30 a month for pills? It’s also, however, a problem that is uniquely female; access to contraception is the only way women can control their fertility and, ultimately, their lives (short of chastity, and who really wants to go there). All women should be granted equal access to control their fertility regardless of their ability to pay.\nIt’s also interesting to consider that this company that refuses to cover birth control for women nonetheless will cover “lifestyle” medicines for men, such as Rogaine for hair loss and Viagra for erectile dysfunction. Making sure men can keep erections and have healthy sex lives but not permitting women to avoid unwanted pregnancies seems like quite a sexist contradiction.\nAs Judge Kermit Bye said in his dissent “... the inequality of coverage is clear. This failure only medically affects females, as they bear all of the health consequences of unplanned pregnancies ... Women are uniquely and specifically disadvantaged by Union Pacific’s failure to cover prescription contraception.” Uniquely and specifically disadvantaging people sure sounds a lot like discrimination.\nStrangely enough, Working Mother magazine recently named Union Pacific one of the top 100 companies for working women. Perhaps they’ll want to reconsider those rankings soon.