A battle over birth "control": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates.

C Keanin Loomis
{"title":"A battle over birth \"control\": legal and legislative employer prescription contraception benefit mandates.","authors":"C Keanin Loomis","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), employers are prohibited from discriminating against women by treating pregnancy and childbirth different from other medical conditions. Employers who offer medical benefits to their employees have thus been required to cover pregnancy-related medical costs on the same terms as other medical coverage. The cost of prescription contraception, however, has generally not been covered by employer-sponsored medical plans, even while other prescription drugs were. This Note examines the recent case of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., which challenged this practice of excluding prescription contraception coverage as discriminatory under the PDA, and argues that further federal legislation is necessary to ensure the equal treatment of women in the workplace.</p>","PeriodicalId":83315,"journal":{"name":"The William and Mary Bill of Rights journal : a student publication of the Marshall-Wythe School of Law","volume":"11 1","pages":"463-94"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The William and Mary Bill of Rights journal : a student publication of the Marshall-Wythe School of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), employers are prohibited from discriminating against women by treating pregnancy and childbirth different from other medical conditions. Employers who offer medical benefits to their employees have thus been required to cover pregnancy-related medical costs on the same terms as other medical coverage. The cost of prescription contraception, however, has generally not been covered by employer-sponsored medical plans, even while other prescription drugs were. This Note examines the recent case of Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co., which challenged this practice of excluding prescription contraception coverage as discriminatory under the PDA, and argues that further federal legislation is necessary to ensure the equal treatment of women in the workplace.

一场关于生育“控制”的斗争:法律和立法规定雇主处方避孕福利。
根据《怀孕歧视法》,禁止雇主歧视妇女,将怀孕和分娩与其他医疗条件区别对待。因此,向雇员提供医疗福利的雇主必须按照与其他医疗保险相同的条款支付与怀孕有关的医疗费用。然而,处方避孕药具的费用一般不包括在雇主赞助的医疗计划中,尽管其他处方药是包括在内的。本文考察了最近的Erickson诉Bartell制药公司一案,该案件对排除处方避孕保险的做法提出了质疑,认为这是PDA下的歧视,并认为有必要进一步的联邦立法来确保女性在工作场所的平等待遇。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书