*blink*

Whaaat?

Wait, so if it's not directly related to pregnancy, it's not actually women's healthcare? So... I take it they don't let people have mammograms?

People like this would also say "pregnancy isn't a disease."
May we then have the correct definition and purpose of contraception?

It's called "preventative healthcare", idiots. And because it can PREVENT pregnancy, it is thus RELATED to pregnancy.
Of course, I'm preaching to the choir here. But damn, this makes me mad!

um wait. so they would rather their employees all get pregnant and go on maternity leave...? although i guess since contraception isn't related to pregnancy, that cause and effect is a little beyond their grasp.

What. The. Fuck.

I have been a customer of Bell South/Cingular (now AT&T Wireless) for about 7 years. I am going to try to contact the company and will cancel my subscription if they do not agree to change their policy.

It is impossible to find corporate contact info...been digging the pages to no avail, just generic "customer support" and "tech support" stuff.

611 is the number to call from the cell phone, though.

Actually, what happened in the case against AT&T, is that the judge ruled that he was bound by a higher federal court's ruling, a ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of Union Pacific Railroad.

The judge in the AT&T was correct to find himself bound by a higher court's ruling, it's the same principle by which lower courts are bound to uphold the ruling in Roe v. Wade, for example, but the Union Pacific case is a pretty big load of shit in and of itself.

Well, I guess the judges are technically correct in ruling that contraception is not necessary once the woman is pregnant. To say contraception is not related to pregnancy is silly, perhaps not as a treatment during pregnancy, but contraception is most certainly related to pregancy (even if it's an inverse relationship). So, if treatment during pregnancy is covered as a medical condition, why is a prescription medication to prevent that condition not covered?

In case anybody is interested in the Union Pacific ruling, it's found in its full text at http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/03/061706P.pdf

I called and they were wholly unhelpful. The land line # to call is 1-800-331-0500.

Anyone else find anything/have any other luck?

Found this:

For Corporate information and questions only, you may contact 908-221-4191, and listen for the prompts.

Haven't called yet to confirm it's a good number.

The page for media inquiries is here: http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=5036

Here is a contact form for corporate:
http://www.corp.att.com/contact/forms/inquiries.html

I don't know...I've never organized anything. Do you think even contacting them and telling them you intend to cancel your service would work? (A-la girlcott?)

One question. Does AT&T cover Viagra and other ED drugs?

What the...?!

so they would rather their employees all get pregnant and go on maternity leave...?

Good point. And the healthcare costs of a pregnant woman are going to cost way more than the costs of contraception, which makes you wonder why a company would go to so much trouble not to cover contraception. However, I suspect that many of the female employees will pay for contraception out of their own pockets rather than get pregnant, and thus overall the company *does* save costs by not covering contraception. Which is SO infuriating! It's really quite insulting that a company would go to such lengths to avoid covering contraception.

Blitzgal, accourding to this, they do.

BabyPop,

Thanks for the contact info. I called them (didn't get a live person) and then sent them this email:

I understand that your company does not provide contraceptive health care to women employees, and that you are currently being sued over that matter.

Since I have been a customer for two years, and am now off contract, please explain to me WHY I should stick with your services and support a company that does not provide medical services that happen to be essential to my health, and the health and well-being of millions of women worldwide.

I am thinking of joining a boycott.

Tell me why I shouldn't.

Sincerely,

(My name.)

I encourage as many of you as possible, customers and non-customers, to flood them with emails. This is ridiculous. If we all write different (not form) emails, I think it will have more impact. I'm going to email my friends and encourage them to do the same.

having given a quick look at both the union pacific AND this at&t thing, it all smells like bullshit to me.

what they're saying is: A prevents B from happening, but A and B are not related. um, what?!?

That's what I figured, Babypop. It always seems to be the case, too. It's more important to companies that their male employee's sexual health is covered. So exasperating.

What I must ask is... why is contraception still a prescription-only deal? Nearly every woman I know of takes it daily, which means it is probably used more on a daily basis than is aspirin. Shouldn't there be an over-the-counter one available by now?

If contraception isn't related to pregnancy, what is it related to?

"It noted that Union Pacific’s health plans covered neither contraception for women nor for men."

Because men are usually the ones carrying the burden of contraception...

Clearly it's more important to this company that a man be able to get an erection than prevent a life-changing condition for a woman. The consequences of flaccidity are MONUMENTAL in the face of a nine-month ordeal resulting in the birth of another human.

Silly women..don't they know if they don't want a baby they shouldn't be having sex? Oh, but what am I saying...the two aren't related anyway.

why is contraception still a prescription-only deal? Nearly every woman I know of takes it daily, which means it is probably used more on a daily basis than is aspirin.

Well, I don't know all the ins and outs of why one sort of medication is over the counter and another isn't, but I suspect it has nothing to do with common use--otherwise asthma inhalers would be over the counter (why they aren't, I'm not sure). I suspect it has to do with the systemic effects and the interaction issues.

Anyway, this ruling is absurd. The term is "preventative care." My singulair is covered in order to prevent my asthma attacks. Contraception prevents pregnancy.

This might be course sociology in me...but how the hell do people this aggressively stupid gain so much power? How does bullshit like this pass for a rationally and factually based administration of law?

George Bush, at least half of the batshit motherf*Ckers frothing at the mouth on the Senate floor for the G.O.P, yelling their batshittery...

Someone needs to tell Mitt Romney and religious fundamentalists who want to illegalize birth control that's okay...no infants are harmed in the process, b/c the Pill and other contraceptives have NOTHING TO DO WITH PREGNANCY.

"What I must ask is... why is contraception still a prescription-only deal? Nearly every woman I know of takes it daily, which means it is probably used more on a daily basis than is aspirin. Shouldn't there be an over-the-counter one available by now?"

NO, absolutely not available over-the-counter.
Yes, it should be available over the counter but...

In order to get the pill women must see a doctor and have a pap-test once a year and if you are overweight or a smoker, you can be denied access to hormonal birth-control by just such a doctor (in some states, a nurse-practitioner can give you a prescription). You are usually given a 13 pill-pack prescription, but for many medical plans you have to go to the pharmacy once a month to refill because they will not fill more than one per month and often that 13th pack (though needed for the year according to your body) comes completely out of pocket. Most women I know pay $36 per month for their birth-control. I'll only have a small co-pay because I work at a University (generally more progressive institutions), but even in some progressive non-profits, birth-control is specifically not covered, although Viagra is.

Birth-control is part of the "Lady Tax"--the extra money we (on our substandard incomes) have to shell out to merely
live, go to work, and have some control over our bodies.

"You are usually given a 13 pill-pack prescription, but for many medical plans you have to go to the pharmacy once a month to refill because they will not fill more than one per month and often that 13th pack (though needed for the year according to your body) comes completely out of pocket."
I have to get a new prescription for each pack. Granted, I take Seasonale, so it's three months, but it's a pain in the ass to do this. I've been taking it for years, so I know I'm not going to have an adverse reaction by now... give me my damn pills already.
I can't wait for a male pill to come out. Then we might see some changes!

I've been taking it for years, so I know I'm not going to have an adverse reaction by now... give me my damn pills already.

Look, it's not that I don't understand that frustration. But how is it different from my asthma meds and my anti-depressants? I've been taking them for years, too. I know I don't have adverse reactions to them. I still have go get scrips for them every few months and check in with a doctor about how I'm doing on them. It just seems like a lot of what you're saying applies to any maintenance meds.

This really baffles me. It is much cheaper for insurance companies to pay for contraception than it is to pay for OB/Gyn care (which is (or at least used to be) generally the number one expense for insurance companies). I'm surprised that the insurance companies themselves aren't pushing to cover contraceptives as a cost-saving measure.

I guess penny wise/pound foolish is alive and well.

Anyone remember Lysistrata? I wonder if contraception would be covered if women boycotted men in the interest of their health and need to avoid pregnancy. I would hate to see all that Viagra go to waste! I bet the Fundamentalists would love it (until they had to do without).

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I got from reading the linked article, the judge had to rule that way because of a recent ruling, where Union-Pacific railroad was similarly not found guilty of violating Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, as the women in the case are not pregnant. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is about providing medicine to pregnant women--not to ALL women. You can't use that act to justify contraceptive care to all women--it doesn't have anything to do with non-pregnant women. What needs to be done is pass a similar act or law requiring health plans to provide contraceptive care to their members.

Not related to pregnancy? Just like polio is completely unrelated to the polio vaccine? Just like vitamin C is not related to scurvy?

WTF?

Not that pregnancy is a disease, just... the logic here escapes me.

W. T. F.????????

So this is how the first battles in the war on contraception are going to be fought...

On a different note, I don't think that long-term, hormonal contraception should be available without a prescription. It does cause serious side effects in some people, and has some serious contraindications with other medications and the male half of the population. I think it's perfectly reasonable to have it be a prescription medication, but not reasonable to deny financial access to it to people who are perfectly capable of taking it and who would benefit immensely from its availability.

"I've been taking it for years, so I know I'm not going to have an adverse reaction by now... give me my damn pills already.

Look, it's not that I don't understand that frustration. But how is it different from my asthma meds and my anti-depressants? I've been taking them for years, too. I know I don't have adverse reactions to them. I still have go get scrips for them every few months and check in with a doctor about how I'm doing on them. It just seems like a lot of what you're saying applies to any maintenance meds."

That may be true, and perhaps a point a person should be allowed a lifetime prescription that doesn't expire or something. But last time I checked, asthma and depression needed diagnosis and not everyone has them, but every woman has a womb.

And if we use the excuse that some people have serious side effects or that birth control can have adverse interactions with other drugs to keep birth control from being non-prescription, then we should take all the diet pills off the market as well. Some of those quacky things can make people very sick. As for them being bad for men, well, duh, obviously. I think men would probably stay away from them on their own.

Blue Pencils nailed it. The problem is the limited scope of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.

The court isn't allowed to use that act to cover things it wasn't meant to cover.

We need a Reproductive Freedom Discrimination Act or something if we want to force employers to cover contraceptives.

Actually, I'd rather do away with employer based healthcare altogether, but that's another conversation.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with the decision. It would be nice to have guaranteed access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare - but that's what congress is for.

How about Title VII? And it is discrimination on the basis of pregnancy to deny women healthcare that controls when/if they get pregnant. That's like saying it isn't discrimination on the basis of being a man if you, oh, say, cover treatment for prostate cancer but don't cover screening costs (or say, preventative care, if there is any).

Actually, there are over the counter asthma inhalers. They're not as effective as the prescription ones, but when I didn't have insurance and couldn't afford to see a doctor I was very happy they were available. I think it's high time we develop an over the counter version of the pill.

Back on the topic of AT&T, this decision makes me so pissed. I can get the logic It especially boils me that it's not sexism because they don't cover contraceptives for men either. Well, men don't need contraception to prevent them from getting pregnant. Men don't need contraception to prevent them from getting excessive cramps every month and getting light-headed because their iron went too low with the blood loss. I, and other women, do.

I think it might be time to cut the landline.

Here is the text of the act, in pertinent part:

"The terms 'because of sex' or 'on the basis of sex' include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in section 703(h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit otherwise."

I would consider control over fertility to be a medical condition that is "related" to pregnancy. But that's just me.

Well, I fucked up my post a bit. Sorry if it doesn't make sense. I'm just expecially angry over this issue because I recently realized that when my pharmacist told me the other day that I "couldn't get" my NuvaRing, she didn't mean it was because they were out of stock like I naively assumed.

Sometimes I just hate people.

Marle--what happened with the pharmacist? Is this conscience-clause bs, or was it not covered?

Title VII prevents discrimination on the basis of sex. Because both women and men can use contraception, the court reasons that it is not discrimination if it is prohibited from both sexes. That is a big part of the decision. Its not a good decision because, unless I'm wrong, only women can get prescription contraceptives, though the court did say it would be wrong to deny it if, for example, the health care plan covered vasectomies. The logic is a stretch. What the court is doing is trying to keep the pregnancy discrimination act as narrow as possible, by keeping issues related to contraception out of it completely.

Unfortunately, the courts seems pretty serious about this. The language of the act is so narrow it lends to this decision. Unless legislation is passed concerned prescription contraceptives coverage, I am sure this kind of decision will continue to be upheld.

I wonder if hormonal birth control is only denied coverage if the woman is getting it only as a contraceptive? I just found out that I have endometreosis, and the best thing to keep it under control is the pill (or surgery). Without keeping it in control, it can give women ovarian cysts, and make them infertile.

It's not discriminating against women because women using contraception aren't pregnant.... Does that mean a woman isn't a woman unless she's pregnant?

J.

But last time I checked, asthma and depression needed diagnosis and not everyone has them, but every woman has a womb.

You often don't need a diagnosis for asthma--by the time I had the second convulsive coughing-wheezing fit that prevented me from breathing, I felt the doctor's "yep, you have asthma" was a bit redundant.

Every woman has a womb, but not every woman should be taking hormonal birth control. And not every woman should be taking the same kind of hormonal birth control. There are numerous contraindictions, numerous interactions, numerous side effects. I just don't see how hormonal birth control is different from any other long-term medication. I also think we could do with more diet pill regulation.

Primatene Mist is a rescue inhaler, and it is available over the counter. None of the maintenance meds are, however--not the long-term bronchio-dilaters or inhaled steroids that make day-to-day breathing not difficult.

Good call, Jeannie. I'm a bit confused myself, there. Aren't the only people who take hormonal BC women? So isn't not covering it discriminating against women? Reminds me of that 1970s ruling saying that a particular employer's policy didn't discriminate against women, but against "pregnant persons." Because after all, if a man became pregnant, he wouldn't be allowed to do whatever it was either...

So does this mean that women don't need paps either since a lot of us younger women have to have those as part of our way of getting contraception? I mean I'm just a little confused...i always was under the impression it was part of our health care stuff...hmmmm maybe i should rethink this huh.

It's not discriminating against women because women using contraception aren't pregnant.... Does that mean a woman isn't a woman unless she's pregnant?
If that were what the ruling said, but you're mixing up the conclusions and their justifications.

The ruling said that it doesn't violate federal protections regarding women and pregnancy because, according to the judges, those protections only cover pregnant women, and it is not a violation of gender discrimination laws because the policy also does not cover contraceptives for men.

It's plausible that the way the law is written, having not read it myself, that it reads as only protecting the rights of pregnant women to be insured for care related to their pregnancy. I feel like that's probably tucked into the vague parts of the law and that this is a subjective ruling by the 8th Circuit Court, but that's just based on instinct.

The latter part of it, the idea that it doesn't meet gender discrimination tests because men are also not covered is ridiculous. I'm positive that there's precedent to which that does not stand up.

I don't want to take this too far off the discussion of the actual court case, but I'd just like to say FUCK AT&T. I was recently in an A+ certification class (computer tech class) that they offered in partnership with urban leagues around the country, which AT&T swiftly turned into a clusterfuck.

First, after scoring highly on some entrance tests, we were promised that we would get the A+ class, and get a voucher (worth $300) to take the test. Then, if we passed, we could go on to take Network+ and get those tests paid for. Well, partway through the A+ class AT&T CUT OUR FUNDING. The class had to end early, no Network class was offered, the majority of students didn't get vouchers, and nobody's going to get a full voucher -- only half the exam will be paid for, assuming we can even pass it with the class being cut off early. These classes were full of people who really needed it and really wanted to improve their lot in life -- unemployed mothers, homeless people, everybody. And the kicker is that somebody in our class heard that AT&T only participated in the program for the tax writeoffs they could get. Fuckers. Fuckersfuckersfuckers.