stfusexists:

bridges-balloons:

stfusexists:

President Barack Obama’s decision to require most employers to cover birth control and insurers to offer it at no cost has created a firestorm of controversy. But the central mandate—that most employers have to cover preventative care for women—has been law for over a decade. This point has been completely lost in the current controversy, as Republican presidential candidates and social conservatives claim that Obama has launched a war on religious liberty and the Catholic Church.

{…]

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn’t provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

That opinion, which the George W. Bush administration did nothing to alter or withdraw when it took office the next month, is still in effect today.

So insurance companies —which I know from personal experience will STILL and until August of this year provide employers with the option to have insurance plans that DO NOT cover any birth control— have been in violation of Title VII for A DECADE?

Quick question, hopefully someone can answer it.

I’m currently under my father’s insurance through his union. I also have PCOS. I have been placed on a few different kinds of birth control pills for this reason. After we switched pills (I honestly don’t remember if it was the 1st or 2nd time), they suddenly stopped covering my BC pills when they originally had covered them (I was not sexually active at the time). Would they be in violation of this law?

Secondary note: this was in about 2008/2009, not prior to 2000.

The short answer is yes. The long answer is whatever the bullshit gatekeepers who are at the company’s help desk and the insurance agency will tell you to justify why they don’t cover your birth control.