Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Are you sure you want to use THAT argument?


From over at Washington Monthly:

In a sharply critical ruling, a Nebraska federal district judge said Union Pacific Corp. illegally discriminated against female employees by barring prescription contraceptive coverage from its health plans — even as it underwrote the cost of Viagra and drugs for male-pattern baldness.

....In its briefs, the railroad justified its decision to exclude birth control coverage by arguing that "because fertility is 'normal,' contraception is not 'medically necessary.'"

So ... the railroad's basis for coverage is whether or not a particular condition is "normal"? Maybe it's just me but, the last time I looked, a 4-hour woody was anything but normal.

Well, OK, I just have to be in the mood.

1 comment:

A Hermit said...

Baldness is "abnormal"?

Oh, now I REALLY feel bad...:-(