NEWS
Lautenschlager pushes for contraceptive coverage
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Ryan Masse:
Related Stories:
- Senate passes contraceptive legislation (October 17, 2001)
- AG asks for lawsuit over Plan B (December 2, 2005)
- Morning-after pill to be available without prescription (September 4, 2006)
- Doyle gives go-ahead for FDA lawsuit (December 9, 2005)
- Contraception bill advances (September 1, 2005)
Share This:
by Ryan Masse
Wednesday, September 1, 2004
If an employer provides prescription drug coverage under its health-care plan, then coverage of contraceptives must be included as well.
That’s the opinion of Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.
In a letter written to Wisconsin Secretary of Health and Family Services Helene Nelson Aug. 16, Lautenschlager said exclusion of contraceptives constitutes sex discrimination under state and federal law.
“This opinion reflects not only Wisconsin law, but also federal law on this issue, and is aimed directly at correcting an inequity that, if left unchecked, will continue to compromise women’s health — and women’s right to equal health care,” Lautenschlager wrote.
Lautenschlager found continued exclusion of contraceptives would violate the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA). She referred to a decision by the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in which denial of contraceptive coverage was considered sex discrimination under Title VII, which is the federal equivalent of WFEA.
Lautenschlager also stressed the importance of contraceptives in preventing serious health problems.
She invoked a decision in the state of Washington in which a court rejected arguments that contraceptives are not medically necessary. It ruled they prevent many health, social and economic problems associated with unwanted pregnancies.
Although a formal opinion, Lautenschlager’s view has no immediate legal effect. Any change to come from it is uncertain, according to attorney general spokesperson Deirdre Morgan.
The matter has never been tested before a Wisconsin court. But an attorney could use the opinion to base a case challenging Wisconsin’s lack of contraceptive coverage, Morgan said.
Despite the lack of an immediate impact from the opinion, Planned Parenthood sees the announcement as a big step toward ensuring women receive adequate health care.
Planned Parenthood has sought to enact legislation requiring contraceptive coverage for the last decade.
“It’s very relevant,” Chris Taylor, spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, said. “This is a matter of not just gender equality, but access to basic health care.”
Abortion opponents have lashed out at Lautenschlager’s opinion.
Peggy Hamill, state director of Pro-Life Wisconsin, said the opinion ignores the conscience of health-care providers who morally object to the use of birth-control drugs and devices.
“The so-called pro-choice movement wants the millions of Americans who oppose abortion and know human life begins at the moment of fertilization to pay — through their insurance premiums — for the elective actions of others,” Hamill said in a statement.
UW students are among those who could also be affected, as prescription-drug plans at public universities would apply for contraceptive coverage.
UW System officials did not have an immediate estimate as to how the inclusion of contraceptives would affect the universities, but system spokesman Doug Bradley said the issue will be debated in the near future.
Mariamne Whatley, associate dean of the School of Education, said businesses would benefit by considering the possible economic gains from including contraceptive coverage.
“From an economic perspective, [pregnancies] cost the system a lot more than paying for birth control,” Whatley said.
