Union-Busting With Birth Control

AP (07.25.05):

"Union Pacific Railroad discriminated against women by not covering contraceptives in its health care plan, a federal judge has ruled. The policy is discriminatory 'because it treats medical care women need to prevent pregnancy less favorably than it treats medical care needed to prevent other medical conditions that are no greater threat to employees' health than is pregnancy,' the judge wrote in the ruling late Sunday." Judge: Railroad Must Cover Birth Control

A Union Pacific representative said the railroad would appeal "because, among other things, the decision to exclude contraceptives in the benefits package was negotiated with the company's unions." Well if the union fell for it, it must be OK. For some reason, the representative also felt a need to point out that "nonunion employees have had prescription contraceptive coverage for 'some time.'" The Civil Rights Act "prohibits employers with 15 or more workers from making decisions based on gender or pregnancy", which pretty much covers all the bases here. Even so, it's not like contraceptives are prohibitively expensive, with many running at around $40.00 a month. And this is a retail price. And this is brand-name, not generic. As well, the heathens at Guttmacher note that "available research suggests that by reducing the direct and indirect costs associated with unintended pregnancy, contraceptive coverage would, in fact, save employers money." The $64,000 question is posed by Illinois governor Rod R. Blagojevich: "If insurance companies can cover Viagra for men, it’s only fair that they be required to cover birth control for women." Hmmm. Would the good Governor be suggesting be some kind of correlation here?