Copyright 1999 The Buffalo News
The Buffalo News
June 11, 1999, Friday, CITY EDITION
SECTION: NEWS, Pg. 4A
LENGTH: 492 words
HEADLINE:
WOMEN, LAWMAKERS PRESS TO INCLUDE CONTRACEPTIVES UNDER;
HEALTH COVERAGE
BYLINE: LAURA MECKLER; Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
BODY:
Some women's groups are trying a new tack in their effort to force
employers to include prescription contraceptives in health insurance coverage:
It's against the law not to, they say.
Sixty groups are asking the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission to instruct employers that excluding
birth-control pills and other contraceptives from their health plans amounts to
gender discrimination.
Meanwhile, the fight to toughen the law was
renewed in Congress, where legislation to force insurance companies to cover
contraception was reintroduced.
The issue gained steam last year when
the male impotence drug Viagra came onto the market. Some women's groups argued
that it was unfair that many insurance companies covered Viagra and did not
cover birth control, including the birth-control pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant,
diaphragms and intrauterine devices.
"The time has come to make sure
women are no longer cheated with the insurance coverage they get," said Marcia
D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, which asked the
commission to issue a "policy guidance" to employers on the issue.
Such
a policy would not be legally binding, but it could influence employers and
would strengthen a lawsuit on the subject should one be filed. The Women's Law
Center is also considering such a lawsuit.
A commission spokesman,
Michael Widomski, said the panel has never looked at the issue. Even if it
decided to act, it would take at least several months to develop such a policy,
he added.
The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex,
including pregnancy-related discrimination, and the courts have struck down
other insurance policies based on gender discrimination.
One of the
issues is whether the coverage rules affect women differently, explained Suzanna
Sherry, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and an expert in
sex-discrimination law.
The argument is compelling, she said.
"It is taking the law a step beyond where it is right now, but it's not
a huge step. It's a plausible one. But I wouldn't want to predict what the EEOC
would do or a court would do," she said.
Employers oppose mandatory
coverage, citing the cost. They also argue that denying contraceptive
coverage is not sex-based -- it just happens that women are the only
ones who can benefit from prescription contraceptives, said Kate Sullivan of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
"It's not a matter of just denying a benefit
to women," she said.
Also Thursday, legislation to force coverage, which
died in Congress last year, was reintroduced.
"We don't have equity.
Women pay for contraceptives, and insurance companies pay for Viagra. What's
wrong with that picture?" said Rep. James Greenwood, R-Pa., lead sponsor in the
House.
The legislation would force insurance companies that cover
prescriptions to include contraception. By contrast, the commission action would
direct employers to pay for it.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
LOAD-DATE: June 13, 1999 
